Dialogue in Public Engagement:A Handbook

Dialogue in Public Engagement: a Handbook

The Edinburgh Beltane – Beacon for Public Engagement is a four year programmedelivered by a partnership of nineteen organisations, led by the University ofEdinburgh. We are one of six UK Beacons for Public Engagement funded by RCUK,established in 2008 to bridge the gap between researchers working at the cuttingedge and the people their research will affect.

Inspired by the proximity of Holyrood, the Edinburgh Beltane has adopted the theme of enabling access to researchrelevant to public policy. With a Scottish Parliament which prides itself on accessibility, we are well placed to supportpeople when they engage with the research which affects devolved issues.

This handbook is based on a training programme on Dialogue in PE developed through Edinburgh Beltane. It aims toenable researchers to communicate with other groups in ways which genuinely enhance mutual understanding aroundtheir work and around any policy issues it may pertain to.

We welcome feedback on any of the material in this Handbook. Please email any comments to:info@edinburghbeltane.net.

This Handbook was prepared and written by:Wendy Faulkner Honorary Beltane Fellow and Honorary Fellow, University of EdinburghInstitute for the Study of Science, Technologyand Innovation (ISSTI)

This resource operates under a creativecommons attribution-non commercial license.

For more information go to:http://creativecommons.org/about/liscenses

1About Edinburgh Beltane

Image credits: Jehane Barbour, Ruth Cooper, Neil Macmillan,Douglas Robertson and the 'Tales of Things'project

1. Scene Setting: Why ‘Dialogue In Public Engagement’?

1.1 Introducing The Training Programme And Handbook 3

1.2 What Do You And Your Publics Want From Public Engagement? 4

1.3 What Is ‘Dialogue’ And What Can It Achieve? 7

1.4 How Can Dialogue Be Useful In Public Engagement? 12

2. Facilitation Skills: How To Nurture Dialogue

2.1 Effective Communication 14

2.2 Facilitating Dialogue In Group Discussions 16

2.3 Recording People’s Contributions 18

2.4 Handling Lay-Expert Encounters And Diverse Groups 20

3. Choosing Specific Techniques: Which To Use For What Purposes

3.1 Overview Of Techniques 22

3.2 Large And Small Group Formats 24

3.3 Moving Towards Deliberation 25

4. Process Planning: How To Design A Dialogic Public Engagement Activity

4.1 Understanding The Situation 26

4.2 Designing And Planning 27

4.3 On The Day 31

4.4 Evaluating Your Efforts 32

Annex 1: Summary Of Good Practice 34

Annex 2: Experiences Of Dialogue In Public Engagement Around A Controversial Field 36

Annex 3: Selected Bibliography 38

Annex 4: Useful Techniques And Approaches For Dialogue In Public Engagement 40

2 Contents

1.1.1 Aims and format of the training

‘Dialogue’ is a collaborative communicationprocess which prizes mutual listening,understanding and respect. It has proven apowerful approach for helping people tolearn from and understand others, even whenthey come from very different perspectivesor backgrounds, and for enabling people towork together to solve difficult problems.Increasingly, researchers doing publicengagement (PE) are gravitating to thelanguage and tools of dialogue—preciselybecause they want more meaningful andproductive conversations with theirstakeholders and wider publics.

For this reason, the Edinburgh Beltanenetwork offers a two-day course, Dialogue inPublic Engagement, as part of its efforts toenhance capacity building across memberorganisations. This is a structured programme,designed to help you to learn about andpractice dialogic approaches to PE (alsoapplicable to knowledge exchange activities).

It aims to do the following:

• introduce you to the principles of‘dialogue’ and explore how dialogicapproaches can be useful for PE;

• give you practice in some of thetechniques used to nurture dialogue, andhelp you think about what techniques tochoose for which purposes and groups;

• build your skills in facilitating dialogue andin designing dialogic PE activities; and

• encourage you to reflect constructively onyour own PE practices and agendas, and tobe responsive to your experiences andconcerns on this topic.

The training programme encompasses foursessions:

1. Scene Setting: Why ‘Dialogue in PublicEngagement’?

2. Facilitations skills: How to nurture dialogue

3. Choosing specific techniques: Whichtechniques to use for specific purposesand groups

4. Process planning: How to design dialogicPE activities

Hands-on experience of and training inspecific techniques is integrated into all foursessions of the programme.

1.1.2 Aims and format of the Handbook

This Handbook has been compiled as apractical aid and supplement to the trainingprogramme, for participants to take away andrefer to as needed. It expands on

presentations in the course and on lessonswe seek to draw from the practical exercises.The structure loosely follows that of theprogramme. The Handbook has several

annexes, including a summary of goodpractice and a description of the varioustechniques and approaches used or referredto on the course.

3

1.1 Introducing the training programme and handbook

1.1.3 Acknowledgements

This handbook was written by WendyFaulkner. The course on which it is based wasdeveloped by her in collaboration withHeather Rea and has involved Heather andOliver Escobar as facilitators. Wendy retiredfrom the University of Edinburgh in 2009after a career of researching and teachingsocial aspects of

science and technology. Amongst other things,she was latterly involved in a project doingand researching PE around stem cell research(with Sarah Parry and Sarah Cunningham-Burley). In addition to this experience, sheherself has been on two training courses ondialogic approaches—one run by DianaPounds of Dialogue Matters, the other run byOliver Escobar (then) at Queen Margaret

University—plus a course on publicparticipation run by Vikki Hilton of theInternational Association on PublicParticipation (IAP2). The design of the trainingprogramme was informed by all threecourses; this Handbook draws heavily on thetraining manual produced by Diana Pounds.Warm thanks to all.

Session IScene Setting

4 5

1.2.1 The policy context

PE is now widely seen as a necessary part ofthe ‘business’ of doing research. In the socialsciences, the very conduct of research involvesinteraction with non-academic groups, asresearch subjects and/or potential audiences.Similarly, researchers in engineering and healthrelated fields often need to find out aboutusers’ interests and needs, sometimes involvingthem in developing products and policies. Butin the UK, it is the natural sciences which haveprompted the main governmental impetusbehind what gets called ‘public engagement’.

From the late 1980s, science was seen assuffering from a crisis in public trust andconfidence, following controversies over BSE,

GM and the like. It was argued that publicmistrust of science could be remedied withgreater effort to increase public understandingof science. Subsequent social scientific researchdebunked the presumption that lack of supportfor science is linked to scientific ignorance—theso-called ‘deficit model’. This in turn led topolicy pronouncements (most notably by theUK House of Lords Select Committee) aboutthe need for two-way communication withwider publics. This shift signalled the limitationsof seeing public engagement solely in terms ofdissemination or PR, and highlighted the needto listen as well as speak when interacting withnon-academic groups.

At the same time, there are growing demandsfor ‘public dialogue’ in other areas of policymaking which affect people’s lives or whichmight be feared to meet significant publicopposition. In planning decisions especially,there are now statutory requirements forpublic participation (or at least consultation)at local, national and European levels. Thesedevelopments are seen as a response to acrisis of legitimacy and public trust, in relationto both governments and corporations,coupled with greater citizen scepticism aboutauthority (which extends to scientists andacademics) and mounting pressures formeaningful accountability.

1.2.2 What do you want from engaging with publics?

It is clear that PE means different things todifferent people, and that there are manydifferent agendas for PE. What you asresearchers want from engaging with widerpublics might include various combinations ofthe following:

Science communication

• To increase publics’ understanding of whatyou are doing and why

• To disseminate findings that might be ofinterest to specific groups

Inputs to research

• To get substantive inputs to your researchfrom specific groups of publics (eg userstudies, social research)

• To collaboratively generate a researchagenda

Science-public relations

• To improve the trust and reputation ofresearchers or academics (eg to inspireyoung people to pursue a career in science)

• To understand publics’ concerns about aparticular field and potentially meet theseconcerns

Democracy

• To consult publics on the development ofrelevant policies, to safeguard research (egover ethical issues) or to apply research(eg in health, planning).

• To give publics a say in the aims anddirection of research funding

Some of these agendas are instrumental andsome are normative. Thus, the desire tounderstand publics’ concerns about aparticular area of research is generallymotivated by a concern to avoid a major lossof public support for the field, while thedesire to give publics a say over the aims anddirection of research funding is generallyrooted in a wider commitment to extendpublic participation in decision making. Not allresearchers share all these aims, or believethat all of them are equally important ordesirable. In any case, the very topic andnature of different fields tends to mean thatthe drivers for engaging wider publics alsodiffer. For example, ethical issues areparticularly concerning for many of the lifesciences.

The key point here is that you need to bevery clear about your aims and objectives forany one PE effort—not only so you candesign a PE process capable of meeting youraims and objectives, but also so you can behonest and open with the publics you seek toengage about the ‘promise’ you make to them(§ 1.2.4).

1.2 What do you and your publics want from public engagement (PE)?

1.2.3 Who are your publics and why should they engage with your work?

Posing these questions is a vital next step indesigning any PE activity.

The reason for this is twofold. First is torecognise the enormous diversity of those youmay seek to engage. We urge you to think, asmany social scientists now do, about ‘widerpublics’ in the plural and to studiously avoid thetemptation of constructions like ‘the publicthink…’. In reality, there is no singular ‘public’sharing common views. Rather, the citizenry (ofwhich we are all part) is diverse on numerouscounts. Quite apart from the obvious distinctionsof gender, class, education, culture, ethnicity, andage; people will have had very different andparticular experiences in their lives—differenceswhich profoundly shape both how they look atthe world, and their hopes and fears.

Because we all have multiple identities andneeds—related to family, work, communityand so on—and because the world is

complex, our experiences and our views onall sorts of issues are also generally complex,often contradictory. For example, research onattitudes to science reveals that a general aweabout the achievements of science (andtechnology) coexists alongside a generalinclination to be sceptical about scientists incertain situations. In this as in other areas,people are influenced in part by the generalclimate of opinion and knowledge aroundthem and in part by their own specific lifeexperiences (or those of people close tothem). Social scientists sometimes talk ofdifferent ‘standpoints’ to capture the complexbreadth of people’s backgrounds, perspectivesand feelings about a topic. They argue that, inorder to understand different standpoints,one needs to see them in context, as‘situated’ in people’s life experiences.

The second reason for posing these twoquestions flows from this. If you are to

succeed in engaging publics in any way, younot only have to know specifically whichgroups it is you want to engage, you also haveto think about what standpoints they willbring, where they will be coming from andwhy they might be motivated to engage withyou. In short, you need to cultivate the habitof thinking from the other(s) and ask ‘What’s init for them?’. Self-evidently, if you do not dothis, you are unlikely to succeed in recruitingthose you want to engage or in keeping themengaged. Moreover, who your publics are maywell have implications for how you engagethem. For instance, will they be confidentengagers or will this be their first experienceof talking with researchers? How will youmanage dialogue involving people with deeplyheld opposing views?

1.2.4 Different levels of public participation and your ‘promise to the public’

The International Association of PublicParticipation (IAP2) proposes a usefulspectrum indicating different levels of publicparticipation and public impact. This isreproduced with some adaptation on the nextpage. Self evidently, the level of participantinfluence over the outcome increases as onemoves along the spectrum: from simpleinforming, to consultation, through involvementand collaboration to empowerment. The twocategories in brackets—‘research’ and‘converse’—have been added to extend therelevance for PE in research.

It is vital to be clear about what level ofinfluence you are offering to members of thepublic, and that you manage expectationsaccordingly. In particular, you must be crystalclear about the extent to which any decisionmaking is going to be shared with and shapedby participants. IAP2 insist that practitionersmake a realistic ‘promise to the public’—andwith good reason. Much public cynicism aboutthose in authority (including academics andpoliticians) and about PE exercises is based onrepeated experiences of broken promises,along the lines of ‘We were asked what wethought but they ignored what we said’.

At the outset, therefore, you must identify andconvey clearly to your publics what it is that theystand to get out of engaging with you, and whatyour promise is to them—in particular, howyou will take on board what they say, andinform them of what has happened to theircontributions. Only then can you expectpeople to be open and speak fully, to hearwhat you have to say and to take an interestin your work. And if you do not honour anddeliver on your promise, you cannot expectpeople to come back; you potentiallyundermine any future PE efforts byresearchers.

Typically, a PE exercise pitched at one levelwill also require activities at ‘lower’ levels. Forexample, conversing and consulting generallyrequire a considerable amount of informingalso. Different activities may involve differentnumbers of people and different degrees ofengagement. Some participants may beinvolved peripherally, either because they arenot so interested or because they are toobusy, while others may commit a lot of timeand energy to the activity.

There seems to be an inverse relationshipbetween the depth of engagement which canbe achieved and the number of people whocan be included. Fewer people can dig deeperon an issue (as in Citizen’s Juries) and morepeople can bring wider perspectives (as in off-the-shelf packages like Future Search).‘Stakeholder dialogue’ can achieve reasonabledepth by including one or more people fromrelevant stakeholder groups. This model is ofteneffective in the resolution of environmentaldisputes, and is being used increasingly as a‘governance’ tool in policy making.

Different levels of participation requiredifferent techniques, and whatevercombination of techniques is chosen must be‘fit for purpose’ (Session 3). Dialoguebecomes more and more crucial to successas one moves along the spectrum, but inprinciple a dialogic approach can strengthen allof these levels. The greater the level ofparticipation and dialogue required, thegreater the preparation and planningrequired, as we will see in Session 4.

Session IScene Setting: Why Dialogue in Public Engagement

6 7

Spectrum of public participation

Adapted from IAP2 sources

Public participation goal Promise to the public

Inform To provide wider publics with informationto assist them in understanding theproblems, alternatives, opportunities and/orsolutions.

We will keep you informed.

We will not withhold relevant information.

[Research] To gather information from wider publics inorder to develop understanding.

We will listen to and acknowledgeconcerns and aspirations.

We will record and report these faithfully.

[Converse] For researchers and publics to reflecttogether on an issue of shared concern.

We will listen to and respect your feelingsand views.

We will acknowledge your concerns andaspirations in our writing, and in our futurework and dealings with wider publics.

Consult To obtain feedback from wider publics onanalysis, alternative proposals and/ordecisions.

We will keep you informed.

We will listen to and acknowledge yourconcerns and aspirations.

We will be open to your influence.

We will provide feedback on how yourinput has influenced the outcome.

Involve To work directly with wider publicsthroughout the process, in order to ensurethat publics’ concerns and aspirations areconsistently understood and considered.

We will work with you to ensure that yourconcerns and aspirations are directlyreflected in the alternatives developed.

We will provide feedback on how yourinput has influenced the outcome.

Collaborate To work in partnership with wider publicsto share the decision making process,including the development of alternativesand the identification of preferred solutions.

We will look to you for advice andinnovation in formulating solutions.

We will incorporate your advice andrecommendations into the decisions to themaximum extent possible.

Empower To place final decision making in the handsof the public.

We will implement what you decide.

1.3.1 What is ‘dialogue’?

A common sense understanding of dialogueimplies two-way communication in whichparticipants not only speak to one anotherbut also really listen to and hear one another,with the result that participants come awaywith a fuller understanding of the topic andeach other, and that the conversationprogresses in some way. Unknown to many, alarge body of practitioners and of literature,with attendant theory and practice, has builtup around this broad set of principles. Wemight refer to this as dialogue with a capitalD. Dialogue with a capital D is acommunication methodology which prizesmutual listening, understanding and respect.Whilst different practitioners favour differentapproaches and uses of dialogue, thefollowing themes are common to all.

First, derived from the origin of the Greekword, dialogos, is an emphasis on the sharingof meaning through conversation. PhysicistDavid Bohm (1996) defines dialogue as:

… a stream of meaning flowing among andthrough us and between us, in the wholegroup, out of which may emerge some newform of understanding or shared meaning.

The emphasis on getting to the meaningsbehind words is shared with discourseanalysts, who have demonstrated that thesame words and entities can have quitedifferent meanings for different people and atdifferent times and places. A key challenge ofdialogue then is for participants tounderstand ‘where others are coming from’—in social science-speak, to situate theirmultiple realities in context.

The notion of multiple realities highlights asecond theme, namely the value ofcollaborative ‘group intelligence’ overindividual thinking. (Note that dialogue hereusually involves more than two participants.)Dialogue practitioners insist that everyone inthe process has something to contribute. Asthe quote from Bohm implies, this process ofhearing all the voices in a group can open upnew spaces that no one individual could getto on their own. In a similar vein, social studiesof science and technology point out thatmany different kinds of expertise are requiredin order to grapple with today’s complex andpressing challenges—not only different kindsof specialist knowledge but also various kindsof ‘lay’ knowledge, including knowledge basedon experience rather than formal training.

Dialogue with a capital D has its roots inconflict resolution, management, and publicparticipation, all of which stress thecollaboration of diverse stakeholder groups.Dialogue thus carries a strong democratic ethicof inclusiveness and equality; that people shouldhave a say in decisions that affect them orinterest them. (Note that this formulationmakes all members of the public potential‘stakeholders’.) In practical terms, this ethiccarries the conviction that if everyone is given avoice and treated with respect, and if a trustingspace is created to look for positive commonground, then the result will be a way forwardthat all participants can support. In short, if theprocess is good, the outcome will be good.

A third common theme thus concernsprocess. Unfortunately, inclusive and respectfuldialogue does not happen automatically inmost everyday interactions. Even whenintentions are otherwise, it is all too easy totalk more than we listen, to assume we knowwhat others mean or need, and to silenceothers. The powerful and vocal generallydominate to the exclusion of others. Dialoguetherefore requires a conscious ‘shift in groupnorms’. In particular, it requires a shift awayfrom the adversarial approaches so endemicin our culture (§ 1.3.3).

Central to the required shift in norms is theneed to nurture a safe and trustingenvironment, in which all participants feel freeto speak openly, and in which everyone isvalued and respected. This shift is usuallymade explicit through a set of ‘ground rules’for the conversation (§ 1.3.5), andencouraged through the use of experiencedfacilitators (§ 2). The details vary, but tworequirements are shared by all: thatparticipants should suspend judgement (goodor bad) of other people and positions duringthe conversation; and that the facilitators’ roleis to nurture an ethic of equality, inclusivenessand mutual respect.

1.3 What is ‘dialogue’ and what can it achieve?

Session IScene Setting: Why Dialogue in Public Engagement

1.3.2 Outcomes, benefits and uses of dialogue

The key benefit attributed to dialogicconversations is that participants come awaywith new or enhanced understandings,precisely because they have had to really listento other perspectives and be open to learningfrom and reflecting on these. This can begreater understanding about the complexityof a topic and/or about different people’sstandpoints, their backgrounds, positions,perspectives, experiences, interests, needs, etc.

Less obviously but potentially of equal if notgreater value over time, dialogue can havesignificant benefits in terms of relationshipbuilding:

• Dialogue can build relationships and trustamongst participants. This can be valuablenot only in relation to the issue at hand;the contacts and networks built can alsobe drawn on when needed in future.

• Dialogue can generate trust and ongoingengagement with the sponsor. If peopleexperience that their contribution to adialogue has been heard and taken onboard, and if they feel that their contributionhas made a difference, they are more likelyto trust the organisation that sponsored thedialogue and to participate in any futureengagement activities.

• Doing dialogue can be a very effective routeto capacity building for any futureengagement (or other) activities where adialogic approach would be useful.

• Dialogue can enhance ‘social capital’ moregenerally. Broad and deep social networks,linking contacts from diverse communitiesin trusting relationships, help individuals tosurvive and get things done. Social capitalalso helps to sustain societies; enablingpeople to work together even in difficultcircumstances. Like financial capital, it isgradually built up and can be drawn onwhen needed.

Given the concerns about public perceptionsof and trust in science, these relationalbenefits of dialogue may be particularlycritical for natural scientists.

Dialogue is often paired with deliberation—where people come together to reach anagreement over a difficult issue. Deliberationdiffers from dialogue in that some kind ofdecision is expected as an outcome and,therefore, judgements do have to be madeand agreed on. However, where a dialogicstep or steps precede a deliberative process,the outcome of the deliberation can takeunexpected directions, often leading to‘better’ decisions (§ 1.3.3). Precisely because it

aids mutual understanding and relationships,dialogue provides a strong foundation forresolving conflicts, solving problems oragreeing on a policy or course of action.

Dialogic approaches have proven to be apowerful tool in creative efforts to solvedifficult problems, resolve conflict and/orgrapple with complex issues, in a number ofsettings: public participation in local decisionmaking and planning, public consultations,neighbour mediation, development projects,environmental disputes and management,peace work, and organisational change in thepublic and private sectors. The participatoryand egalitarian ethic of dialogic approacheshas gained added prominence following therecent shift in attitudes to governance notedearlier (§ 1.2.1).

8 9

1.3.3 Contrasts with adversarial approaches

An explicit critique of adversarial approachesis shared by all dialogue theorists andpractitioners. Political debate, academictraining, legal disputes and much decisionmaking are all characterised by participantsadvocating and defending their own positions,whilst attacking others’ positions, with theexpectation that only one side can ‘win’. Inthe adversarial approach, there is little or noroom for contributions which are not fullyworked out or argued logically, with evidence,and so forth. By contrast, dialogue seeks tomove behind and beyond entrenched

positions. It does this by viewing all kinds ofknowledge as valid inputs, and by encouragingparticipants to ‘tell their story’ and avoidsweeping generalisations. In addition, therequirement to suspend judgement and avoidsilencing other voices encourages participantsto work together rather than against oneanother. In such ways, dialogue tends tohighlight the complexity of issues instead ofpolarising them.

The following table highlights some keycontrasts drawn with more conventional

approaches. As noted earlier, dialogue strictlydefined does not lead to a decision (in somuch as judgement is suspended).Nonetheless, where it is part of a deliberativedecision making process, dialogue has thepotential to lead to a win-win outcome—win-win in the sense that the decision arrivedat is one that all participants can live with.

Debate, dialogue and deliberation

Debate Dialogue Deliberation

Seeks to promote opinions and gainmajority support

Seeks to build understanding andrelationships

Seeks common ground in order to solveproblems

Participants argue, express, persuade andcompete

Participants exchange, listen, reach across,reflect

Participants frame and weigh options, andmake choices

Outcome: win/lose Outcome: no decision Outcome: win/win

Contrasting approaches to decision making

Non-participatory decisionmaking

Consultation* Dialogic deliberation

Focuses on issues and outcomes. Focuses on issues and outcomes. Focuses on process as well – becauseprocess shapes outcome, and relationshipbuilding is important to both.

Tends to privilege ‘facts’ and specialistinputs.

Tends to privilege ‘facts’ and specialistinputs.

Also takes account of other stakeholders’expertise, feelings, experiences, values,views, etc.

Assumes two or more set positions, andtends to highlight and polarise differences.

The remit is often ‘framed’ in narrow terms(eg around a set of firm proposals).

Tries to find common ground by addressingthe interests, values and needs underlyingpeople’s positions, so potentially revealingnew opportunities or solutions.

Win-lose outcome inevitable. Win-lose outcome likely. Searches actively for ‘win-win’ outcome, andways to benefit all parties.

Outcome is imposed, top-down.

Consequently, the decision is more likely toencounter resistance.

Key decisions have often been taken beforethe consultation.

Widespread cynicism that consultations are‘window dressing’ only.

Ideally happens at an earlier stage in theprocess, so that participants can have realinfluence.

There is wider ‘buy in’ and support for thedecision(s) taken.

Outcomes often reflect pre-existing powerand resource inequalities.

Outcomes often reflect pre-existing powerand resource inequalities.

Outcomes reflect the interests of abroader range of stakeholders.

Adapted from Bone et al, 2006

* The points relating to consultation are drawn from Ackland et al, 1999.

Similar contrasts are drawn between deliberative decision-making processes using dialogue and more conventional top-down andconsultative approaches.

Session IScene Setting: Why Dialogue in Public Engagement

10 11

The diagram below illustrates the argumentabout win/win. In the conventional adversarialapproach, the different parties’ positions areoften what is visible, with little or no commonground between them. The debate and choicestake place between these set positions, whichmeans that one party wins and the otherslose. By contrast, a decision making process

which builds on dialogue brings the potentialfor a ‘win win’ outcome. This is because theprocess of creating spaces for diverse voicesand stories to be heard encouragesparticipants to look behind set positions, toidentify the interests, needs or values whichunderlie them but which are not generallyvisible or articulated. In so doing, they are likely

to find common ground or newunderstandings and possibilities from whichmore fruitful movement can take place. Bystrengthening relationships, dialogic processesalso increase people’s desire to find agreementand to accept an outcome even if it doesn’tmeet all their interests, on the grounds thatthere is something in it for everyone.

Inclusive, dialogic decision making processes arelikely to be ‘better’ than non-participatory andnon-dialogic methods, in the following ways:

• The decision is well-informed and workable,because it captures different forms ofknowledge (as argued in §1.3.1) andreflects the interests of relevantstakeholders. Participation by the full rangeof stakeholders affected is more likely toaddress ‘real’ problems and issues, notsolely those identified by decision makers.

• Dialogic processes avoid or manage conflict.This is an inherent strength of therequirement to suspend judgement, andthe emphasis on mutual listening andunderstanding.

• Dialogic decision-making generates ‘buy in’and lasting support. Because diversestakeholders are involved in reaching theagreement, they are motivated to ensurethat the project delivers the promisedoutcomes and the decision is likely to bemore widely supported.

• Dialogue is cheaper. Although aparticipatory decision making processtakes longer than one that is imposed topdown, it avoids the need for costly PRexercises and legal processes at theimplementation stage and beyond—precisely because there is ‘buy in’ by keystakeholder groups.

In most cases, the PE efforts of researchersare geared to enhancing understanding andrelationship building rather than reachingresolution or agreement. Nonetheless, themerits of using dialogue as part of a decisionmaking process are relevant to many kinds ofPE—and to the development of strategy forPE—in that they signal the significant benefitsto be gained potentially in terms ofresearchers’ relations with their publics.

1.3.4 Dialogue and discussion

We are often asked what distinguishes‘dialogue’ from ‘a good discussion orconversation’. A useful way of thinking aboutthis is that conversations and discussionsoften take the form of an exchange ofmonologues, and rarely allow time for thekind of free-flowing non-judgemental sharing

and reflection required of a full blowndialogue. Clearly there is a spectrum onwhich conversations or discussion may feelmore or less dialogic.

In practice, genuine dialogue can be elusive—something that is achieved fleetingly in a

specific encounter or exchange, and may thenbe lost. (See § 2.2.1.) We can tell that dialogueis happening to the extent that (i) deeper levelsof hearing and understanding occur, and (ii)openness and trust are built.

1.3.5 Ground rules or guidelines for dialogue

Good practice in any inclusive andparticipatory effort involves a set of ‘groundrules’ or (for those uncomfortable with thelanguage of ‘rules’) guidelines. Ground rulesseek to set the tone in which dialogue canoccur. Especially in the opening stages, they canease people into working together and helpthem feel more comfortable about speaking—especially where participants disagree, feelconfused or intimidated, or where emotionsrun high. Ground rules are an invaluable aid forfacilitators, giving them authority to challengedisruptive behaviour and nurture an ethic ofinclusiveness and respect (§ 2).

The following points are fairly widely used inground rules or guidelines for dialogue:

• We are here to work together; everyonehas something to contribute.

• Give everyone space to speak; ‘one voiceat a time’.

• Listen actively to what everyone has to say.

• Make your points concisely, and don’t letyourself or others dominate the discussion.

• Respect different views; try to understandone another better, not to judge orimpose your views.

• People have the right to be silent, but notto be silenced.

You can tailor these guidelines to the activityyou are planning and the groups involved,adding or amending items as needed. It is vitalthat you do not simply impose your guidelines,but rather give people the opportunity to saywhether they feel comfortable with them, and toalter or add specific points.

Some additional handy tools can also beestablished at the outset:

• Parking place. This is for matters whicharise in a discussion but which take it offtrack. It means that the issue is not lost,and can be returned to at a later stage.The contribution of the person whoraised it is acknowledged, but is notallowed to distract the group from itscurrent task or topic. You must of courseallow time later to address any topicswhich have been ‘parked’.

• Useful words. This can be used to list anddefine words which people did notpreviously know but which seem to benecessary for participation, eg relevantjargon and technical terms.

• Questions or information requests.Participants may list here any queries andrequests which cannot be answered bythe immediate group but which theywould like the organisers to provide indue course.

• Agenda setting. In an extended process,and where there is a desire to involveparticipants in shaping the process, it canbe useful to note items for future agendasas they come up.

Each of these tools can take the form of awall space (flipchart or sticky wall) with therelevant heading, where items can be addedwhen they arise and picked up and addressedat a later stage.

Session IScene Setting: Why Dialogue in Public Engagement

Increasingly, PE involves a two-waycommunication process, even in the case ofdissemination or PR efforts. As researchers,you may have many reasons to want to engagewith various stakeholders and wider publics:

• To gain other points of view as an input orinspiration to your research

• To build wider understanding of andsupport for your work

• To hear and potentially respond to anyconcerns in the hope of avertingopposition

• To address or resolve social and ethicalissues raised by your research.

In all of these scenarios, a dialogic approachwill ‘add value’ to your PE efforts. It meansyou are more likely to really understandwhere people are coming from and sorespond appropriately.

Dialogue aims for mutual benefit as well asunderstanding and mutual respect—hencethe need to ask at the outset ‘what’s in it forthem?’ (§ 1.2.3). This has real implications forhow we do PE, for example:

• Inform and inspire. Dialogic approaches todissemination and ‘science communication’involve listening as well as speaking and soare more likely to identify what informationinterests your publics and what aspects ofyour field will inspire them.

• Research. Dialogic approaches to researchsee research subjects as participants withthe potential to learn from and shape theresearch process (see below).

• Converse, consult and involve. Dialogicapproaches in these types of PE seek toreduce or overcome lay-expertimbalances and empower non-specialiststo participate as equals.

Note: By stressing the need to listen to yourpublics, we are not suggesting that informingpeople about your research ceases to beimportant in dialogue. Information is often anecessary prerequisite to reflecting ordeliberating in depth on many issues. Inaddition, many participants demandinformation in order to gain the confidenceto participate: they need knowledge so thatthey can understand the issues a bit morebefore they speak, and often so they don’tworry about appearing ‘stupid’. (See § 2.4.)

A recent project to engage publics arounddebates about stem cell research illustratesmany of the points made here, and serves asa potentially interesting case for othercontroversial areas of research. Annex 2provides an overview of how the project wasconducted and draws some practical lessons.

1.4.1 Specific benefits of dialogue in public engagement

Dialogic approaches can also enhance otheraspects of academics’ work. Social researchmethods—surveys, interviews, focusgroups—tend to involve one-waycommunication. Those being researched donot learn much about the topic or aboutthose doing or sponsoring the research; thereis little or nothing ‘in it’ for them. By contrast,dialogic research approaches aim for mutualunderstanding and mutual benefit, and seeresearch subjects as participants with thepotential to shape the research process.

Lectures and other forms of presentation areone-way in the other direction: the teacherlearns little or nothing about the taught.Seminars and other small group forms ofteaching have the potential to overcome this.There can be real advantages to consciouslyavoiding adversarial forms of discussion (see1.3.3) in these settings: greater participation,greater learning from one another andincreased scope for reflection.

Finally, any collaborative effort, be it inteaching, research or administration isenhanced when participants practice dialogue.

Note: Whatever the context or motivation,dialogue is not something which is achievedonce and for all. In practice, genuine dialoguecan be elusive—something that is achieved onlyin fleeting moments of enhanced understandingand trust, in specific encounters or exchanges,and then lost. (See § 1.3.4.)

1.4.2 Other benefits of dialogue in academic work

1.4 How can dialogue be useful in public engagement?

12 Session IScene Setting: Why Dialogue in Public Engagement

13

14 15

Communication theory tells us thatcommunication is never a simple process oftransmitting messages: rather, the senderencodes the message and the receiverdecodes it through a complex array of socialand cultural filters that shape what we see andhear. Thus, when we communicate withpeople with similar histories and worldviewsto our own, the level of mutual understandingis likely to be reasonably high. But when wetry to communicate with people with verydifferent backgrounds or perspectives to ourown, mutual understanding becomes different.

Age, social class, education, gender, and cultureare obvious factors here, which you must try tobe aware of and sensitive to if you are to

Nurturing dialogue means learning how tofacilitate effective communication. We can startby thinking about the challenges in practicingdialogue.

facilitate effective communication. Bear in mindthat diversity on these counts may mean thatpeople do not always experience a contributionin the spirit intended (eg jokes). Facilitatingdialogue in settings of cultural diversity can beparticularly challenging. The key messages hereare to be sensitive to potential differences, andto avoid caricaturing or stereotyping others.Encouraging people to ‘tell their story’ can helpus to see the human in each other even whenwe appear very different; it helps build themutual understanding needed to overcomecultural barriers.

In addition to these broad differences inbackground and perspectives, many individualdifferences can influence the effectiveness or

otherwise of communication. These includenot only personal circumstances or stronglyheld views, but also personality differencesand communication skills. People with bigegos or with little self-awareness can closedown the possibility of meaningful dialoguebefore it even starts! A key challenge inpracticing dialogue is to pay attention to theinterpersonal dynamics in a group. Learn tosense how each member’s behaviour (yoursincluded) is experienced by others.

The following table lists some obviousbarriers to effective communication; you willprobably have experienced these, and others.

2.1.1 Obstacles to effective communication

For many academic researchers, the hardestpart of practicing dialogue is listening morethan speaking. The notion of focused or activelistening is helpful in this context. This meansgiving someone your whole attention, to hearnot only the words they are using but also(and more difficult) to hear and understandwhat lies behind the words—the feelings,meaning and significance of the message.Listening in this sense requires an attitude ofempathy, respect and acceptance towards theother person; the ability to convey to themthat you want to hear what they have to sayand will not judge them for it. This is why thesuspension of judgement is so vital fordialogue: people need to feel safe andrespected if they are to speak openly.

It is important to give people space to telltheir story in their own words. Active listeningdoes not mean you have to remain silent, butit does require you to demonstrate to thespeaker that you are concentrating, that youhave understood what they have to say, andthat you value their contributions and (whererelevant) accept their feelings at face value.

There are various non-verbal ways to signalthis, for example:

• Eye contact

• Nodding

• Leaning towards the speaker

• Undivided attention (not looking at yourwatch or being distracted)

• Recording what they say

Verbal signals that you are listening mightinclude:

• Affirming sounds like ‘Ah-ha’

• Short phrases: ‘OK’, ‘I see’, ‘Yes’

• Encouraging questions: ‘Can you tell us abit more about that?’

• Clarifying questions: ‘Where does thishappen?’, ‘Can you give an example?’

• Summarising or paraphrasing: ‘Are yousaying…?’, ‘Can I check I’ve got this right?’

• Affirming or validating: ‘That is helpfulinformation.’, ‘Thank you for being so open.’

There are some obvious blocks to activelistening which you need to look for, inyourself and in other participants. Non-verbalblockers include:

• Fidgeting, yawning, flat facial expressionsand other signs of boredom

• Distractedness such as looking at yourwatch or out the window

• Body posture very tense or over-relaxed

Verbal blockers include comments which dothe following:

• Advise or order people on what theyshould do

• Judge people for their views

• Label people: “You’re being irrational,childish”, etc

• Patronise people or de-value their feelings:“That doesn’t really matter”

2.1.2 Active listening

Judicious choice and framing of questions is acrucial skill for facilitating effectivecommunication and dialogue. We havealready noted above some ways of framingquestions to demonstrate that you arelistening actively and have understoodpeople’s contributions, namely:

• Encouraging questions

• Clarifying questions

• Summarising or paraphrasing

It is useful to be aware of the distinctionbetween open and closed questions.

• Closed questions invite a yes or no answer;they are generally only used for movingthings on or to check people’sunderstanding: ‘Have we said enoughabout this?’, ‘Do you all agree?’

• Open questions often start with What,Where, Which, Why, When or Who andinvite fuller answers; they are open-endedand can help people to express theirviews or experiences more fully, and toexplore meanings.

It is also important to avoid phrasingquestions in ways that imply judgement. For

instance, ‘Why?’ questions, like ‘Why do yousay that?’, may engender a defensive reaction;instead try ‘Could you tell us what has leadyou to think that?’ or ‘The group might beinterested to hear what lead you to that view.’

This is an example of ‘re-framing’ a questionin ways that open up rather than closingdown dialogue. Below we demonstrate howyou can reframe negative contributions in adiscussion into positive questions, thatacknowledge the issue raised but open up aspace to explore positive responses orsolutions (§ 2.2.5).

2.1.3 The importance of questions and how you frame them

2.1 Effective communication

The ‘Understanding and telling’ drawing exercise highlights how difficult it can be to communicate effectively even when the subject in questionis straightforward and carries no emotional or other ‘baggage’!

Interpersonal behaviour

• Personal power

• Strong emotions

• Different ways of thinking about an issue (see Thinking Hats in Annex 4)

• Egos

• Poor communication skills

Lack of relevant important information

• can lead to speculation and suspicion

• a downwards spiral of anxiety, fear, hostility and conflict

Different standpoints

• Class, age, gender, ethnicity, etc

• Backgrounds, needs, interests, hopes and fears

• Perspectives, views, values, etc

Structural and cultural obstacles

• Adversarial culture

• Positional power or competition

• Cross-cultural differences and stereotyping

Session 2Facilitation Skills: How to Nurture Dialogue

16 17

Your central role as facilitator is to help thegroup meet the aims of the discussion as fullyas possible in the time available. In order toachieve this, you must also try to encourgethe fullest possible participation of the group,and you must maintain your impartiality onthe topic under discussion. You may steer ormoderate the discussion in order to keep it ontask and inclusive, but you are not there tocontribute substantively.

Good facilitation requires good interpersonalskills, an awareness of ‘self in relation to others’.Cultivate active listening so you are able to graspthe points everyone is trying to make; anddevelop an awareness of the dynamics, positiveor negative, within the group, bearing in mind allthe potential barriers to communciation (above).

Remember: Facilitation is done WITH agroup, not TO a group.

You and the participants are workingtogether to achieve collective goals. A furtherkey challenge in doing dialogue is therefore togain participants’ trust and cooperation.Achieving real participation demands thepractice of equality and mutual respect. Itrequires that people feel that:

• they are being listened to and valued;

• they are treated with honesty and respect;and

• they can influence what happens.

When this happens, attitudes and behaviourchange: people become more willing to hear

and understand other perspectives and moreinformation is shared. This in turn buildsfurther trust and cooperation. When peopledo not feel they are being treated in thesepositive ways, they will not share information,communicate openly or think creatively andpositively. Dialogue is blocked.

Remember that dialogue is not something thatis achieved once and for all. It can be elusive,achieved only in fleeting moments ofenhanced understanding and trust. Do notlose heart if dialogue is blocked, but practiceways of overcoming the obstacles. Try to buildon the positive moments, to create a virtuouscircle in which dialogue happens increasinglyoften.

2.2.1 General guidance on facilitation

A typical pattern in un-moderated smallgroup discussions (especially where theparticipants do not know each other) is thatthe more assertive participants speak first,then others gradually join in, but someparticipants do not speak at all. If one ormore people dominate the discussion, ormake dismissive or judgemental commentsabout other people’s positions, they will ineffect have silenced or marginalised thoseparticipants to the detriment of all.

Your role as facilitator is to encourage a spiritof inclusiveness, where everyone contributesas fully as they feel able or willing, and whereno-one dominates the discussion and no-onefeels marginalised or silenced. Your authorityfor this is backed up by the ‘ground rules’ orguidelines for discussion, which participantsagree to at the beginning of the event oractivity. There are various ways to ensure thatall voices are heard and respected:

• It can be useful to open with astraightforward and non-sensitive ‘warmer’question, which you go around the groupand ask for everyone to answer in turn.But beware that some people find thisintimidating and that it tends to lead to agroup norming dynamic, where peoplefollow the lead of early respondents.

• Part of the task of a facilitated dialogue isto develop a shared understanding ofreality so that the discussion is wellinformed from all standpoints. In this spirit,encourage everyone to say what theybring to the table, stressing that there maybe many different perspectives and/ortypes of knowledge around the table.

• If someone is speaking for too long, youmay ask them to make their point conciselyso that others get a chance to speak.

• If the discussion becomes a melée orsomeone keeps interrupting, remind themof the ground rule ‘One voice at a time’.

• When handling behaviour which isdisruptive, dominating or distracting, youcan point out that your responsibility is tothe whole group (by implication not to anyone individual), and appeal to the group tomove the discussion on or to respondconstructively (eg by ‘reframing’ § 2.2.5).

• If someone has noticably not spoken, youmay ask them if there is anything they wouldlike to add to or comment on in thediscussion so far. But you should avoid puttingpeople under too much pressure; do notforce people to speak if they are obviouslyuncomfortable. People often choose to saynothing, eg in order to listen closely.

• If you fear that several participants feelthey have been silenced you might use ananonymous Sliding Scale (see techniques)of ‘I feel I am being heard’. In this way, thewhole group can gauge how inclusive it isbeing, and take remedial action if needed.

• If someone is being disrespectful orjudgemental of other participants(s),remind them that people can onlyparticipate where there is trust, andmaintain your own impartiality as a modelto others (see § 2.2.4 below).

• Throughout, try to maintain a positiveadmosphere and tone. Seek to put peopleat ease and encourage goodwill,participation and trust—not least, by yourbody language and expressions.

It is especially important that you get into thehabit of acknowledging everyone’scontributions, however modest. Your key role isto let people know their inputs are appreciatedand understood, by acknowledging theircontributions and inviting others. Rememberthat most people are shy of speaking in front ofothers they don’t know. The smallest ‘Thankyou for that’ (preferably followed by theirname) can make all the difference to whetherthey will feel like opening their mouth a secondtime. Merely stating in the ground rules thateveryone’s contribution is valued is not enough;people have to feel valued.

2.2.2 Inclusiveness: How do you ensure that everyone’s voice is heard?

There are various ways to intervene in orderto keep the discussion on task. For example:

• Ensure complete clarity and accountabilityas to what particpants are being asked todo at any one point and why.

• Make judicious use of opening up andclosing down techniques and questions, asneeded, at the beginning and end of thediscussion.

• If people seem to be misunderstandingone another, or if one person is strugglingto get a point across, ask them to clarify orgive an example to illustrate what theymean. If this seems to be intimidating, tryreflecting what has been said (a key activelistening technique): ‘let me see if Iunderstand your point’. This can move thediscussion beyond a log jam, and isessential if the discussion is being recorded.

• If the discussion strays onto another topic,you may suggest that a note be taken ofthe topic and ‘parked’ in the ‘Parking Place’,so that it is not lost or ignored but can bereturned to at a later stage.

• At the outset, enlist your participants intimekeeping and in keeping focused: makesure they are clear about the aims of thediscussion and know how long they have.A few minutes before the end, it may benecessary to ask for any winding upthoughts. Where the intention is tofeedback from small group discussions to aplenary session, get the group to drawthreads or review what they feel are themost important points to have come outof the discussion. (There are varioustechniques for doing this. See § 3.1)

If the whole group falls silent, it is oftenhelpful to ‘ride the silence’, at least for a while,to let people digest what has been said. But ifthe group appears to have dried up, there arevarious neutral ways to prompt furtherdiscussion without ‘leading’ it:

• Don’t mistake general silence for assent:ask ‘Does everyone agree with this or arethere different views?’

• Restate the question: ‘Let me just remindyou of the question again…’, ‘Take amoment to reread the question and see ifit triggers something…’

• Invite participants to look at the topicfrom a different angle: this will usuallyinvolve an open question and clearlyrequires some knowledge of the topic.

• Invite others to add ideas or comments:‘What else can we add to the list?’, ‘Isanything missing?’, ‘Does this trigger anyother thoughts?’, ‘Anything else anyonewants to add?’, ‘Can we add some moredetail to this?’, ‘Has anyone got anythingelse they would like to add?’, ‘Is there anyaspect of this that we haven’t got yet?’.

• If an individual has dried up, invite them tosay more: ‘Can you tell us more aboutthat?’, ‘Could you explain that in a bit moredetail?’, ‘Can you expand on that a bit?’,‘Can you give an example?’.

2.2.3 How do you keep the discussion on track?

In order to play the role of facilitatoreffectively, you must maintain your neutralityon the subject under discussion and resist thetemptation to contribute substantively to thediscussion. This can be hard for academicswho are used to talking. It can also be difficultif you have a keen interest or strong views onthe subject, or are excited by what peopleare saying.

Maintaining impartiality does not mean youare passive. There are various ways todemonstrate your neutrality and engenderthe trust needed for everyone to feel safe toexpress their views and feelings:

• Do not comment on or judge people’scontributions. Even positive judgementsabout one contribution may block otherparticipants from voicing differing views.

• Invoke the ground rules if needed. Remindparticipants that everyone has a right totheir views and that people can onlyparticipate where there is trust—eg ‘weare not here to judge one another’—andencourge them to try to understandwhere other people are coming from.

• Insist that, whilst participants maycomment on or respond to each others’views, it is completely unacceptable tocomment on them as people.

• Affirm the value of all contributions withcomments like ‘Thank you for that’ anddemonstrate your respect for differentstandpoints through any summarisingcomments you make—eg ‘For you this is adifficult issue because…’.

• Be aware of other non-verbal signals youare giving (see § 2.1.2).

• Avoid leading questions that invite a pre-determined response, and intervene withan open question if other participants aska leading question.

• Record all contributions (not just the onesyou agree with).

On rare occasions you may feel it necessaryto step out of your role as a facilitator : forexample, to provide information for whichthe group is asking or which you feel mightmove them on or, exceptionally, to tentativelyfloat a suggestion that would help the groupout of a logjam. If so, make it explicit to thegroup that you are doing this and, once youhave made your contribution, that you areresuming your role as facilitator. Never defendor promote your own idea.

2.2.4 Impartiality: How do you avoid pre-empting or prejudicing the discussion?

2.2 Facilitating dialogue in group discussions

Session 2Facilitation Skills: How to Nurture Dialogue

18 19

As noted earlier, your role as facilitator is toencourage a spirit of mutual respect andinclusiveness where no-one dominates thediscussion and no-one feels marginalised orsilenced. In § 2.2.2, we listed a number ofways you can respond to disruptivebehaviour, often invoking the ‘ground rules’ fordiscussion. Bear in mind that yourresponsibility is to the whole group, not toany one individual, and do not ‘reward badbehaviour’ by giving the disruptive personmore airspace than anyone else.

In addition to these tips and pointers, wewould encourage you to practice ‘re-framing’a contentious or disruptive contribution. Thepoint of re-framing is to regain a positivefocus for the discussion. Done well, it can be apowerful technique for moving people from anegative stance to seeing a positive wayforward. There are three basic steps:

• Acknowledge what has been said.

• Ask an open question that seeks to get atthe heart of the problem.

• Involve other members of the group insolving the problem.

The following examples illustrate the kinds ofshifts one can make in order to move from anegative statement to a positive question.

‘You are so negative about this proposal –>How might we evaluate proposals?’(shift from you/me to we)

‘I object to landfill sites –>How might we deal with community waste?’(shift from closed to open)

‘The project officer has not been keeping usinformed –>How might we improve communication?’(shift from personalised to depersonalised)

‘Last time I went to a workshop it was acomplete waste of time! –>What in particular made it a waste of time?How might we overcome this here?’(shift from past problems to future opportunities)

‘This is the responsibility of government! –>What could happen at a local level (here) tohelp improve things here?’(shift from general to specific)

‘We should go to the press about this failure! –>What would you like to have seen happen?’(shift from threat to affirmation)

[Examples from Ackland, 1997.]

There can be many reasons to make a recordof a discussion, although this is not arequirement. If a decision is to be reached orrecommendations made, recording whatpeople say ensures that all contributions are

registered, and their ‘fate’ can in principle betraced. If the intention is to enhanceunderstanding, then having a record of thediscussion allows you to see whereunderstanding has shifted or been blocked,

and to report on progress made. In eithercase, it is important to your participants, andfor your relationship with them, that they get(or have access to) a copy of any recordstaken.

2.2.5 Handling disruptive behaviour: Re-framing

2.3 Recording people’s contributions

Records of a discussion may be made with anaudio recorder or with someone typing asummary on a computer, which is projected(so all can see what is being written). For themoment, however, the most widely used andsimplest way to capture what people say ingroup discussions is to write on flipchart paper.Ideally, one person facilitates a discussion whilea second person records, but sometimes thesame person has to do both jobs.

As the recorder, your role is to listen carefullyto and then summarise each contribution.Here are a few guidelines:

• Use enough words that the point will beclear to someone not in the group, butnot an essay—a short sentence or phraseis usually enough, but headings aregenerally not.

• Write as people speak and try to use theirwords without writing down every word.

• Ask for clarification if you are unsure ofsomeone’s meaning; check with themand/or the group that your wording is OK,eg ‘Does this capture what you mean?’, ‘Isthat clear?’.

• If jargon is used, check that everyoneunderstands the meaning.

• You may need to slow down thediscussion in order to record it adequately.

• Maintain your impartiality by recording all(relevant) contributions.

The following practical considerations are alsohelpful:

• Start every point with a dash not a bulletpoint or star—bullets and stars take longer,and the ink may go through the paper.

• Write clearly and keep your handwritinglarge enough for everyone in the group toread—check with them. Lower case iseasier to read than capitals.

• Try to avoid turning your back on thegroup, especially if you are also facilitatingthe discussion. This is easier if the flipchartpaper is at an agle to the group.

• If the group wants to add to a pointalready made, mark the original point witha number and start that number on a newline; don’t cram new writing beside aprevious point.

• Use a different colour for the heading thanfor the discussion points—as a way ofvisually reminding people what they arebeing asked to discuss, so keeping focus.

2.3.1 Recording discussions on flipchart paper

Very often the recorded outputs of a dialogicevent will be analysed, either as an input tothe next step in a multi-stage process or inorder to feed back to participants and wideraudiences what was said.

Always check with participants what theywould like back in this regard. The writtenoutputs can be made available to participantsby taking high resolution photographs of

them to be emailed, or (at greater cost) byproducing verbatim records of these.

If a scientific paper is to be produced fromthe written records, it is good practice to getconsent for the use of these—as you wouldget written consent for using taped records.You can assure participants that none of thecomments will be attributable, and that they

are free to stipulate that any specificcontribution not be recorded.

Whatever is being done with the records, it isessential that each sheet is clearly headed andnumbered so that it will be obvious laterwhich questions were being addressed and inwhat order the contributions were made.

2.3.2 Recorded outputs

Session 2Facilitation Skills: How to Nurture Dialogue

20 Session 2Facilitation Skills: How to Nurture Dialogue

21

By their very nature, dialogues involvingresearchers and wider publics are often lay-expert encounters. Equally, any dialogueinvolving diverse groups can be understoodas an encounter between multiple realities.

2.4 Handling lay-expert encounters and diverse groups

This is a crucial issue for researchers doing PE.

Knowledge is the most obvious ‘divide’ orimbalance when specialists meet non-specialists (an alternative way of thinking aboutexperts and lay people). It is very hard forsomeone with three degrees and the habit ofinteracting with other specialists to imaginewhat it feels like to be a non-specialist, or whatis needed in order to convey specialistknowledge effectively to non-specialists.

The growth of ‘science communication’ effortsand expertise in the last few decades has nodoubt improved researchers’ capability in thisarea to some degree. However, many ‘lay’people, even those who are specialists in otherfields, remain extremely critical of scientists’ andother academics’ inability to talk in plainlanguage and explain things clearly. Repeatedly,we hear people say they feel ‘bamboozled byscientists’. You must be sensitive to such

feelings. Remember that your specialistknowledge is only one type of knowledge;other people may well bring importantknowledge inputs and insights you hadn’tthought of or valued previously, but which arehighly salient to your work or the topic athand.

2.4.1 Knowledge divides

The sense of being bamboozled highlights asecond aspect of lay-expert divides, namelyimbalances of confidence. Being dependent onparticular expert knowledge (eg a doctor ifyou are seriously ill) can stir up deep feelings ofvulnerability because we ‘hand over control’ tothat expert. We have to trust that they arecompetent and will act or speak in our bestinterests—in a situation where we are unableourselves to make judgements about their

expertise, but are (collectively) increasinglyaware of the uncertain and contested natureof scientific knowledge.

Imbalances of confidence are especially evidentin PE encounters with individuals and groupswho have had limited education or verynegative educational experiences, and whooften report (in private) that ‘clever people’make them feel inadequate, stupid or

patronised. This should be a major concern forany PE efforts that seek to be inclusive ofwider publics, especially more disadvantagedgroups. Subtle markers of class are oftenplayed out in such encounters, with all theattendant blindness as to how the ways inwhich different backgrounds and experiencesshape people’s worldviews and emotionalmake up.

2.4.2 Imbalances of confidence

Different backgrounds and experiences oftenresult in quite different standpoints on anissue (cf § 1.2.3 and 1.3.1). This constitutes athird kind of divide which can surface in lay-expert encounters. It is all too easy forpeople with strong, apparently anti-scienceviews, or deeply felt scepticism or suspicions,to be dismissed by researchers as ‘irrational’,‘ignorant’ or ‘irrelevant’. When this happens,the person or people concerned may bemomentarily silenced or marginalised, buttheir views are unlikely to be changed. The

opportunity for genuine dialogue will havebeen lost. Moreover, those silenced will beless inclined to ‘hear’ alternative views having,in effect, been disengaged and potentiallyalienated further from science.

It is true that some deeply held views are soentrenched there is little room for movementor compromise (eg the ‘pro-life’ position onembryology). However, most people’s viewson most difficult issues are not rigidly blackand white, but rather acknowledge the

inevitable complexity to some degree—especially when given the chance to heardifferent views and reflect in more depth onan issue. In practice, the different perspectivesbrought by non-specialist groups can providevery valuable inputs to the task of enhancingeveryone’s grasp of the complexity of anissue (and, potentially, of finding a solution thatall can live with).

2.4.3 Multiple realities

In sum, there are at least three ‘divides’ orimbalances in lay-expert encounters:

i) knowledge imbalances

ii) educational and confidence imbalances

iii) differing experiences and perspectives

Power dynamics can play out through all ofthese imbalances to block genuine dialogue.

Avoiding or working through such powerdynamics is quite a challenge. It requires youto really imagine and empathise with howpeople experience you if they lack yourspecialist knowledge and your confidence or ifthey take vastly different or critical views toour own. You have to learn how to activelylisten to, and actively demonstrate respect forthose who differ from you. And you have tolearn how to convey your own knowledge

and views in ways that empower rather thandismiss or marginalise others. Remember thateveryone is expert in something, if only theirown experiences; and everyone’s views arereal for them. In dialogue, everyone’s viewshave legitimacy and deserve to be heard; allviews are valid and relevant. You may disagreewith them profoundly, but these are thepublics you want to engage with!

2.4.4 Power imbalances in lay-expert encounters

22 23

The next table lists some techniques that canbe used to nurture dialogue, indicating whatthey can be used for and signalling somepractical considerations. Annex 4 of thisHandbook includes details on how and whento use the specific techniques we havepracticed in this course, and provides pointersto some other approaches.

Using these techniques does notautomatically guarantee that dialogue willhappen. How you adapt and facilitate themwill determine whether they meet yourdialogic aims. But all have the potential doachieve one or more of the following:

• to nurture respect for all voices, mutuallistening and understanding

• to look for the positive rather thanentrenching the negative

• to move beyond polarised positions

• to find common ground or new avenueswhere possible.

The crucial point to grasp here is thatdifferent techniques are appropriate fordifferent types of tasks and objectives, fromenhanced understanding through to shareddecision making (cf the spectrum of

participation in § 1.2.4). Moreover, differenttechniques are suited for using with particularsocial groups or mixes of groups. Wherethere may be reticence to speak, for example,early use of techniques which preserveanonymity can serve to ensure that all voicesare heard.

3.1.1 Different techniques for different objectives

There is a fairly clear order of things oneneeds to consider and decide on beforechoosing a specific technique:

• Be clear about your objectives: the desiredoutcomes and outputs for this step in yourevent or activity.

• Be clear about who your participants will beand what’s in it for them. Various factors –including how in/excluded they are, howexperienced in PE, and any pre-existingconflict or imbalances – will influence howeasy or not it is to recruit particulargroups, and how easy or not it is toachieve dialogue.

• Frame the question(s). Each step in adialogic process will usually address a set

question, which you have drawn up as partof a strategic succession of questions takingpeople from where they are to where youor they want to be (see § 4.2.1).

• Take account of all practicalities. Theavailable time and resources, the venue,number of participants and facilitators,background and experience of both, allhave a bearing on what is feasible.

• Select the most straightforward technique toget the job done. Don’t be a techniquejunkie and let the tail wag the dog bychoosing a technique just because youthink it’s cool, or before you haveestablished what you want to achieve andwhat the context is.

Section 4 takes you through this sequence inprocess planning.

If your event involves several sessions, bear inmind that variety is important. Using a mixtureof techniques helps keep the activity livelyand avoids boredom setting in. It is also likelyto work for a larger proportion of yourparticipants since different people havedifferent learning styles. Different people learnbest from reading, from watching, fromlistening, from using their hands and bodies,from exploring their feelings, and frominteracting with others.

3.1.2 Think before you choose a technique!

3.1 Overview of techniques Challenges/uses Techniques Practical considerations

Ensuring all voices heard Metaplan

Mini-metaplan

Is reasonably anonymous and avoids ‘groupnorming’.

Gauging feelings, views, level of knowledge Sliding Scales Can be done anonymously to avoid ‘groupnorming’. Can be used flexibly throughoutan activity (eg I feel I am being heard).

Building understanding Carousel

Metaplan

Thinking Hats

Pooling knowledge, perspectives and views Nominal Group

Mini-Metaplan

Carousel

Thinking Hats

Listing

The first two of these techniques are alsouseful for reporting back from smallbreakout groups to plenary—depending onwhether each group has addressed thesame question or different questions.

Future visioning Metaplan This would use a questions such as ‘It’s2020 you’re looking … and you’re happywith what you see. What do you see?’

Finding common ground Appreciative Inquiry

Thinking Hats

Generating creative ideas (eg of possible solutions)

Brainstorming

Making choices/Consensus building Short listing

Prioritising

There are various ways of getting a groupto establish the levels of support fordifferent proposals, so as to produce ashort list for further discussion, or identifythe one with the most support.

Evaluating your efforts Written evaluation forms

Verbal feedback

Sliding scales

It is vital to find out where people werecoming from – in terms of why they choseto participate in the activity, their priorknowledge and views, etc – in order tounderstand the significance of what theygot out of it, liked and disliked, etc.

Session 3Choosing Specific Techniques: Which To Use For What Purposes

24 Session 3Choosing Specific Techniques: Which To Use For What Purposes

25

Keeping everyone together in one largegroup makes sense when everyone needs tohear the same thing:

• introductory comments

• instructions about what you are askingpeople to do

• presentations, eg on backgroundinformation

A critical choice in choosing techniques is whento keep people all together in plenary and whento split them up into small groups (sometimescalled ‘breakout’ groups).

• to hear feedback when small groupsreturn in plenary

In general, large group formats are not goodfor achieving dialogue, because:

• a small number of people tend todominate and many voices are silenced

• those who do speak may feel moreconstrained in what they say than in asmall group

• people have to wind up the courage tospeak, which can mean they make theirpoints in a more aggressive way than ifthey were in a small group, so leading tomisunderstanding and defensiveness.

3.2.1 Large group formats

There are several different ways to allocateparticipants to small groups if you want theseto be mixed:

• Allocate groups in advance. From a list ofknown participants, draw up a list beforethe event of who should be in whichgroup, in order to ensure that each groupcontains a reasonable balance of the all thestakeholder groups present. This saves timebut can fall apart if not everyone turns up.

• Group people randomly, by asking people tocount off around the room, to the numberof groups (1, 2, 3, etc). All the ones are

together, the twos, etc. Note: if you want adifferent mix of people for any subsequentsmall group sessions, and if people keepsitting in the same places when theyreturn to plenary session, you may have tofind other mechanisms!

• Self-selection. If different groups are doingdifferent tasks, ask people to sign up forthe group they want to be in. Thisapproach tends to ensure commitment forthe task, but it can result in some over-large and some over-small groups.

• Ticket of passport method avoids thisproblem. You ‘issue’ an equal number oftickets for each group and task. Thesetickets can take the form of Post-itsattached to a piece of paper with theheading and description for each group’stask. You explain that you will say ‘go’ shortly.At that point, those who have one strongpreference should rush to pick up therelevant ticket; those who have no strongpreference should saunter; and those inbetween should walk briskly. It works!

A deliberative process seeks to arrive at adecision. Dialogue is essential if decisionmaking is to be genuinely collaborative, soshared with relevant stakeholders. Thisprocess is likely to combine some or all of thefollowing tasks (see table for methods):

• Future visioning

• Gathering and pooling relevant knowledge(s)

• Building understanding

• Finding common ground

• Generating ideas for possible solutions

• Making choices

• Consensus building

• Action planning

• Evaluation

3.2.3 Methods for grouping people

Future visioning can be a very powerful earlystep in dialogic and deliberative processes.

The point of the exercise is to move peopleaway from entrenched positions, or at leastenable them to put these aside for a moment,in order to give voice to what they would likein an ideal future scenario. The surprising effect

of doing this is that people often discover thatthey share similar dreams, or interests andneeds, even with people whose views theyoppose. As well as helping to build bridges,this unexpected common ground cansometimes suggest solutions or ways forwardthat no one had thought of before.

Future visioning thus illustrates the kind ofthinking needed to help participants look forthe positive, for common ground. In this way,it can lay the basis for shared agenda settingas a first step in deliberation.

3.3.1 Future visioning

In dialogue about controversial or complextopics, it is important to create spaces fordifferent styles of thinking and types ofcontributions: information, feelings, criticaljudgements, positive judgements, creativesolutions, and contributions about process.

Especially where there is a mix of specialistand non-specialist groups, creative use of

Thinking Hats can be particularly helpful (seeAnnex 4). This broad approach has severalmerits. First, it sets up a process in whichfeelings cannot be dismissed—something thatcan be particularly challenging for scientistsand other academics. Second, it obligeseveryone, even those with quite entrenchedpositions to voice, and thus potentially toconsider, other positions. Third, by introducing

an element of theatre, it may help to level theplaying field in terms of confidence and sofacilitate inclusion.

3.3.2 Hearing multiple realities

Small groups of 6-10 people work well:

• when the whole group is too large foreveryone to have a say

• when in-depth discussion is needed

• to encourage less confident people tocontribute

• to build trust and understanding; peopleare more willing to risk saying somethingsensitive in small groups than they are inlarge groups.

• when different tasks can usefully be donesimultaneously

The way people are grouped makes adifference to the nature of both the dialogueand the outcome. Mixing people from differentstandpoints, expertises and interests togethercan be very effective in the following ways:

• helping people to hear where others arecoming from

• generating creativity

• scoping ideas

• evaluating efforts in terms of each other’sinterests

• Finding common ground

• Recognising conflict

Grouping together people with similarstandpoints tends to strengthen that group’sviews. This can be helpful when:

• In-depth technical discussion is needed byexperts

• When groups have not had anopportunity to discuss the particular issue,but are more likely to ‘think aloud’ in front ofone another than in front of people comingfrom very different standpoints, etc.

3.2.2 Small group formats

3.2 Large and small group formats

3.3 Moving toward deliberation

26 27

This is a vital first step. A process designedwithout a full and clear understanding of thefollowing risks failure:

What are your (or your sponsor’s) aims andobjectives, in terms of outputs and outcomes? Bywhat criteria will you/they gauge the success ofthe activity?

• The desired outcomes and criteria forsuccess may concern content (egenhanced understanding) and/orrelationships (see § 1.3.2).

• Be very clear about your ‘promise to thepublic’, and make sure that you or thesponsors are in a position to deliver that.Always be honest with participants aboutwhat the activity can achieve, cf thespectrum of participation (§ 1.2.4), and beclear about what can be changed andwhat not.

Who should be involved (as participants) andwhat’s in it for them? (cf § 1.2.3)

• Who are the relevant stakeholder groups?Who else needs or would want to beinvolved?

• What would motivate them to participateand what outcomes would they see asjustifying the effort?

• Note: Where the issues are sensitive, orwhere there is some doubt about whetherparticular groups can be interested enoughin the issue to participate, it can be a veryuseful to make contact with representativesof the likely stakeholder groups—to gettheir perspectives (hopes and fears) on theissue and on the activity, or to enlist themto recruit others in their group(s).

• Who needs to be involved in planning andrunning the activity (as sponsors, hosts,information providers, facilitators)?

What do you need to understand about thetopic and context?

• Are there considerations that will make itdifficult to recruit certain groups, or whichmight be obstacles to dialogue betweencertain groups?

• What are the key issues to be addressed?How are these seen by the differentstakeholder groups?

• What information will participants need inorder to participate fully and effectively,and what is the best way to convey thatinformation?

• Are there hidden agendas and/or a historyof conflict and misunderstanding whichmight undermine the process? Or, do thevarious groups already have experience ofcoming together in constructive dialogue?

What are the practical constraints on what isfeasible?

• In particular, what is the time frame, andwhat financial and other resources areavailable?

• Note: Logistics are as much a strategicconsideration as aims and objectives: oneneeds to be realistic from the outset aboutwhat is feasible so as to come up with aworkable plan and to avoid wasted effortand disappointment.

4.1 Understanding the situation

Designing and planning a dialogic PE process islikely to involve repeated iterations betweenpractical and substantive considerations.

4.2 Designing and planning the process

Once you have a full understanding of thesituation (above), the next substantive taskwill be to frame the process as a progressionof questions, tasks or activities, which takeyour participants from where they are towhere you and they hope to get to.

Asking the right questions at the right time ofthe right people is often the central strategictask in designing any dialogic process, equally

for a single event as a multi-stage process.Make sure you allow enough time, and (ifneeded) get the right advice, to work outwhat that progression of questions should be.

The importance of this cannot beoverstressed. Social science research hasrepeatedly demonstrated how much thesuccess and outcome of PE efforts areconstrained or otherwise by the ‘framing’ of

the activity: ie what questions are asked andwhat topics or issues are open for discussion.How a dialogue is framed can have a hugebearing on whose voices are included orexcluded, and on the where the dialogue maybe able to go—for instance, the potential tomove beyond ‘pro and anti’ positions.

4.2.1 Strategic considerations: framing the dialogue

Where there is to be a series of events andactivities, process planning demands earlyattention to various practical matters, inaddition to the strategic questions above.There may be a number of logisticalconstraints on timetabling: the existence ofany deadline, plus the timing of schoolholidays or any other factors which mightprevent specific groups from participating (egharvest time for farmers). Before thetimetable is set, you must ensure that anappropriate venue is available and booked forthe days and times you want.

As a guideline, 6-8 weeks is the minimumamount of planning time required for a single

event, and to ensure that participants canblock out the date(s) in their diaries. Aprocess involving a series of, say 3 workshops,will require at least 9 months lead time.

A crucial part of the planning stage will be tobuild on your efforts to understand thesituation (above)—not least, to generate asense of what is feasible by scoping the issueand the context; to locate any informationneeded; and to make contact with keystakeholders. Once all the strategicconsiderations have been established, and therelevant practical constraints are known, youcan draw up the outline of a timeline andmove onto process design.

Where a series of activities are intended, youwill need to think about the number and kindof activities required (allowing for resourceconstraints), each of which will move youthrough the progression of strategic questionsand/or tasks you have identified. Once thenumber and nature of the activities has beenestablished, you need to come up with adetailed action plan of key tasks for everyoneinvolved—sponsors, stakeholders, supportstaff, facilitators, etc.

4.2.2 Designing and planning the overall process

Session 4Process Planning: How To Design A Dialogic Public Engagement Activity

Designing and planning a dialogue PE processdemands time and care. Without it, theprocess risks achieving little or nothing. Perhapsmore seriously, people will be less inclined toparticipate in any future PE events or activities,because you will have wasted their time.

The aim in process planning is to provide themost effective process: to be ‘fit for purpose’ itmust be tailored to:

• the desired outcomes

• the needs of the participants

• the available resources.

The task can be split into two stages:

i) understanding the situation

ii) designing and planning the process.

Note that a dialogic process may be a singleevent or activity, day-long or shorter, or it maybe a series of events or activities, eg a seriesof workshops with information gathering andreflection taking place in between.

28 29

The aim here is to plan an event or activitywhich will achieve your objectives. This maybe a small meeting with a very focused andlimited agenda, or a full day event with manypeople working through a series of questions.Whatever the scale and remit, try to avoidover-packing the event and, ideally, retainenough flexibility to be responsive tounexpected developments on the day.

Again timing is a critical consideration: howmuch time will participants be willing or ableto devote to the event, and how much timewill be needed to achieve your and theirobjective(s)? There is no perfect time foreveryone: depending on their occupation anddomestic circumstances, different peopleprefer weekdays in working hours, weekdayevenings, or weekends. Start and end timesmust take account of people’s travelrequirements, also setting up and clearing uptime for the team.

Once these are decided, you need to blockout fixed times to meet people’s biologicalneeds—lunch, tea and coffee breaks—as wellas making allowance for concentration spansand avoiding fatigue. Remember thatrefreshment breaks are also valuableopportunities for informal interaction, so arepart of the process. The larger the number ofparticipants, the longer you have to allow forbreaks, especially if toilet facilities are limited!Always call people back from a break 5minutes before you want to start.

Allow enough time for registration, in whichyou might require participants to do things(eg a Sliding scale or Metaplan), and for anyintroductory comments and activities.This mightinclude one or more presentations, eg toprovide some sort of key information orfeedback from a previous session or work.Similarly, finishing off activities can take time.(See § 4.3.4.)

Once all of these fixed times have beenagreed, you will then be left with slots forsessions in which dialogue is possible. In aday-long event, typically the introductory andother presentations will take you up to themorning tea and coffee break, leaving threesubstantive sessions: one after tea and coffeein the morning, and two after lunch with teaand coffee in between.

Think clearly about what each session is for :what questions you want to pose and whatoutputs or outcomes you want from each(information gathering, learning andunderstanding different standpoints, problemsolving, addressing different topics, findingagreement, evaluating). The importance anddifficulty of the task should help you decidehow long each session will require.

4.2.3 Planning a single event or activity

The aim here is to find the best technique(s)to achieve what you want to achieve in thetime available (see § 3.1.2).

A key consideration is whether small groupsor a plenary will work best for your purposes.If small groups, who will you put in the groupsand how will you allocate them (§ 3.2.2)?These choices have real consequences for theensuing dialogue and how you facilitate this.

You must also decide whether you want all ofthe groups to work on the same questionsimultaneously, or work on differentquestions. This choice will have a bearing onwhat technique you use for reporting back toplenary if this is deemed necessary.

Only when you have worked out all of this – thequestions, the desired outcomes, the timing andgroupings – should you choose a technique! It isa good idea to have a shortlist of techniquesthat might work for your particular session ortasks, but don’t try to be too clever : go for thetechnique that is the most straightforward.Don’t be afraid to adapt or simplify anexisting technique.

Be realistic about timing. People often needlonger than you might imagine to relax into adiscussion and achieve any depth andprogression, especially when working withothers they do not know. Also, allow extratime when people are being asked to move

around (eg the Carousel) or from smallgroups back to plenary sessions.

Finally, prepare a briefing or instructions forparticipants and allow the time needed toconvey fully what is required, with theopportunity for them to ask questions forclarification. Otherwise, people will waste timeand energy in confusion, and potentially getfrustrated or alienated about the whole event.

4.2.4 Planning individual tasks

At every stage, you must try to anticipate allthe practicalities and ensure they are takencare of. Attention to such details can makethe difference between success and failure.The following all require attention:

Reviewing and refining the event plan

Recruiting participants: Which methods? What messages? When?

• a simple mail out to known groups

• wider advertising

• direct personal contact and persuasion

Recruiting, briefing and/or training the team

Venue requirements

• Is the venue appropriate for what youwant to do?

• How will you lay out the room(s)?

• What access to venue do you need forsetting up and clearing up?

• Is it wheelchair accessible and friendly?

• Note: It is vital that your venue allows forsufficient ‘wallspace’ – be it flipchart paperor ‘sticky walls’ – and that whichever youare using can be easily attached withoutcausing damage.

Equipment and materials

• Draw up a list of everything you need andcheck availability in good time

• Check that everything works (eg thatflipchart paper is not so porous and flimsythat marker pens go through to the walls!)

• Write the heading for any flipchart sheetsyou know you will need, and keep themhandy and in the right order.

The next page is a stylised summary of whatyou need to think about when designing andplanning a dialogic PE event or activity: (It isused in the course to structure an exercise inprocess planning.)

4.2.5 Planning practicalities

Session 4Process Planning: How To Design A Dialogic Public Engagement Activity

30 31

Questions Points to remember

What?

What is the context in terms of issues, conflicts, media visibility, etc?

What is at stake for various groups?

Preparation is vital; do your homework, finding key informants ifnecessary.

What information do you need?

Why?

Your (sponsor’s) aims and objectives

Intended/desired outputs and outcomes

Your objectives are critical to the design of a process, just as withresearch design.

The intended outcome may fall anywhere along the spectrum ofparticipation.

Who?

1) Who do you want to engage and what’s in it for them?

2) Do you have to balance different stakeholder groups?

3) Will any of your groups be hard to reach?

4) Any potential imbalances and inequalities?

1) ‘Thinking from the other’

2) Are some stakeholders more important than others? What arethe criteria?

3) Think about your message and method for recruiting moresocially excluded groups.

4) Considerations for nurturing respect and understanding in amixed group.

How?

1) ‘Think from the other’ (your participants) in designing (a)recruitment messages and methods; and (b) your choice oftechniques and your approach to nurturing dialogue.

2) Identify the progression of strategic questions or tasks that willframe the engagement and get you to your desired endpoint.

3) Identify any information needs and think about how these willbe met.

3) Draw up your timeline for the event or activity: see opposite

4) Decide on individual sessions: question(s), timing, groups andtechniques

NB These tasks will need to be done iteratively.

For the purposes of this exercise you are asked to:

1) Present verbally a summary analysis of the situation, includingyour participants.

2-5) Produce a timeline to capture your overall plan (of an eventor activity/ies).

This should include: (i) fixed times blocked out, (ii) individualsessions, (iii) questions or tasks, (iv) information needs, (v)techniques to be used.

Use different coloured Post-its and pens to move specific itemsaround until you feel the plan is fit for purpose.

In presenting the timeline, give your rationale for each of thechoices made.

Welcome everyone and thank them formaking the time to come along, signal youraims and hopes for the session, and outlinethe programme. Specify your promise to yourpublics: how you will demonstrate that youhave taken what they say on board, and howyou will inform them of what will happen totheir contributions and any related outcomes.

Introduce yourself and any staff involved. Ifnumbers are not too big, get the participants

to introduce themselves, possibly using a‘warmer’ exercise to do so. Be aware thatintroductions can take ages if you do notexplicitly limit them.

Explain your ground rules for discussions,saying why these are necessary in order toachieve (or approach) the dialogic aims ofenhanced mutual listening and understanding.Remember to check that people are happywith these—so get their ‘buy in’—and ask if

anyone wishes to propose any additionalrules or any amendments to those you haveproposed

Attend to any housekeepingannouncements—toilets, fire escapes andalarms,etc.

Move on to any presentations of informationor background if needed, being sure to keepspeakers to time.

4.3.1 Opening session

Make sure everyone—facilitators as well asparticipants—knows what they have to do ineach session. Clarity is vital. It is easy forpeople to feel confused, so always ask for anyquestions before moving onto the next task.

Keep people to time, but don’t be so rigidlyinflexible that you can’t respond tounexpected developments or allow a bitmore time if a particular discussion or activityis proving especially fruitful.

Allow time to get feedback from any smallgroup sessions, and use any breaks to getinformal feedback (from facilitators andparticipants) on how well things are working.

4.3.2 Substantive sessions

Participants can easily lose track of ‘wherethey are’ in a process or how the currentactivity fits into the overall process. Whetheryou are running a single event or a series,make time at regular intervals (and as seemsnecessary) to recap where they have comefrom and what is coming up. A visual ‘process

map’, located on a central wall space orflashed up as a slide, can be helpful.

At some junctures, if you have some leewayin the schedule, it can be a good idea tocheck that everyone is ready to move on orwhether they need more time on what

they’ve just been doing. If you are not surewhether the process is working forparticipants, take the time to check andrethink the remaining activities accordingly.

4.3.3 Signposting the process

A key task before finishing will be to conductan evaluation (see § 4.4). In addition, theremay be several other wrapping up tasks—picking up any issues that have been collected

in the parking place or agenda wall spaces,agreeing on what to do with any writtenoutputs, agreeing any further steps in theprocess. Finally, don’t forget to thank all

participants and staff, commending them ontheir achievements.

4.3.4 Closing up

4.3 On the day

Session 4Process Planning: How To Design A Dialogic Public Engagement Activity

Evaluating your public engagement effortsshould be much more than a box tickingexercise. The aim is to find out (i) to whatextent the event or activity met your aimsand those of your participants, and (ii) whatlearning you can take from it to improve yourability to engage wider publics in dialogue.Evaluating these questions requires thoughtfulinputs from two sources:

a) Your participants. You want to know whatbrought them there and what they got out ofit. This information is absolutely vital. Especiallyif you want to engage particular groups in anongoing process of dialogue and deliberation,you need to understand the specifics: whatmotivates particular people to come andtalk about your particular research, and whatmight motivate them to come back for more!

b) Those who sponsored, designed, deliveredand facilitated the event or activity. Theyneed to reflect on what aspects of theplan they felt had worked or not, based ontheir own experience and on the feedbackprovided by participants.

4.4.1 General guidance on evaluation

Getting feedback and reflections from thosewho have delivered and facilitated the eventor activity may also be done in writing orface-to-face. The latter is probably most

valuable. Two discussions can be helpful: oneimmediately after the activity, to pool people’sexperiences and initial feelings about whatworked and what did not; and one after the

participants’ feedback has been collated andcirculated, to reflect on this feedback andsuggest any decisions needed about howfuture activities might be done differently.

4.4.3 Getting feedback from facilitators

If they have not been involved directly,sponsors will need to see the final evaluation,incorporating all the feedback and reflections.This evaluation should be used as a basis tomake decisions in light of any lessons learnedand to consider future strategy for publicengagement.

4.4.4 Then what?

It is vital in any evaluation to find out fromyour participants why they came, what theyhoped to get out of participating, and wherethey are coming from. You can ask thesequestions (in various ways) when peopleregister or at the beginning of the activity oron a written evaluation form at the end. Theobvious advantage of getting a clear gauge ofthis from the outset is that you should beable to pitch your efforts accordingly and beresponsive to any particular concerns orissues. The advantage of asking thesequestions on the evaluation form is that youthen have relevant contextual information foranalysing what each participant tells you theygot out of the activity.

Feedback from participants can be obtainedby various means or combinations:

• Techniques like Sliding Scales andMetaplan

• Written evaluation forms completedindividually

• Verbal feedback session with the wholegroup

• Informal verbal feedback individually (egwith a flip camera)

Sliding scales (see Annex 4) can provide anicely visual ‘before and after’ gauge—eg ofpeople’s level of knowledge or concern abouta topic—which can be incorporated into awritten evaluation form or done on flipchartsheets, or both.

Written evaluation forms should becompleted on the day if you want tomaximise the response rate. Allow enoughtime (15 minutes) for people to respond fully.The forms should not be too long or peopledon’t bother, so select questions that really‘do the job’. These might include:

• What was the most valuable thing (for youpersonally) that you took away from theactivity?

• What did you learn that you didn’t knowbefore?

• Did the activity change your views aboutanything?

• What sessions were particularly strikingand/or useful for you?

• Did any sessions not work for you?

• Any other feedback or comments?

In certain circumstances, you might also wantto use the evaluation form to ask:

• Would you like to participate in anyfurther activities we might organisearound this topic?

• Do you have any requests for agendaitems or activities in any future events?

• What would you like done with therecorded views and information?

• Is there anything you would like furtherinformation on?

Since these questions require participants tospecify their name and contact details, it is agood idea to keep this section of theevaluation form separate (or at leastdetachable) so that it can be handed it inseparately—thus retaining the anonymity oftheir feedback on the activity itself.

You should think about ways of gauging howdialogic your activity was. You might askparticipants and facilitators which sessionsthey felt best helped improve mutualunderstanding.

Except where you want to get gauge theoverall impact of your event or activity, avoidquestions that invite general or abstractresponses as these are not very helpful. Inboth written evaluation forms and any verbalfeedback, encourage participants to be asspecific as possible about what was positive ornot for them, and why. Self evidently, peopleare more likely to be open when givingfeedback in a one-to-one interview.

Ideally, if you decide to use both a writtenevaluation form and a group discussion, youshould get the evaluation forms completedfirst in order to avoid a ‘group norming’ effect.

4.4.2 Getting feedback from participants

4.4 Evaluating your efforts

32 Session 4Process Planning: How To Design A Dialogic Public Engagement Activity

33

34 Annex 1Summary Of Good Practice

35

What is dialogue and howto nurture it1 Dialogue carries an ethic of inclusiveness andequality: that everyone has something tocontribute; that every voice be treatedwith respect; and that participants work tounderstand ‘where people are comingfrom’ even when they come from verydifferent backgrounds or disagree strongly.

2 If the process is good the outcome will begood. Dialogue is distinguished fromadversarial forms of debate and decisionmaking. It is nurtured through a commonlyagreed set of ‘ground rules’ and carefulfacilitation, which together encourage non-judgemental inclusiveness. Ifparticipants feel safe to speak openly, andfeel they are heard, the benefits will be feltin new or greater understanding and newor stronger relationships.

3 Think about how dialogue can ‘add value’ toyour PE efforts. Where dialogue happens,efforts to ‘inform and inspire’ start fromwhat interests people; efforts to engageresearch subjects see them as participantswith the potential to learn from and shapethe research; and efforts to converse with,consult or involve stakeholders or widerpublics seek to reduce lay-expertimbalances and empower non-specialists toparticipate as equals.

4 Your central role as a facilitator is to helpthe group meet the aims of the discussion asfully as possible in the time available.Youmay steer or moderate the discussion inorder to keep it on task and inclusive, butyou are not there to contributesubstantively. Remember: facilitation isdone with a group, not to a group

5 Cultivate and encourage active listening. This means giving someone your wholeattention, to hear not only the words theyare using but also the feelings, meaningand significance that lie behind the words.Use a combination of verbal and non-verbal signals to convey an attitude ofempathy, respect and acceptance towardsparticipants—that you want to hear whatthe speaker has to say and will not judgethem for it, that you are concentrating,have understood, and value theircontributions.

6 Be aware of potential barriers to effectivecommunication. Differences in age, socialclass, education, gender, culture are allfactors, but so too are differences inpersonal style and power. Encouragingpeople to ‘tell their story’ can helpovercome such barriers and build mutualunderstanding. Pay attention to groupdynamics and cultivate an awareness of‘self in relation to others’. Learn to sensehow each member’s behaviour (yoursincluded) is experienced by others.

7 Work to gain participants’ trust andcooperation. People need to feel that theyare being listened to and valued, treatedwith honesty and respect, and caninfluence what happens. When people donot feel they are being treated in thesepositive ways, they will not shareinformation, communicate openly or thinkcreatively and positively. Dialogue isblocked.

8 Judicious choice and framing of questions is acrucial skill for facilitating dialogue. To openup discussion use open questions (what,how, why or when), framed to be notleading or judgemental. Closed questions(inviting a yes or no response) aregenerally only used for moving things onor to check people’s understanding. Activelistening uses questions to encourage andexpand, clarify and summarise (to checkunderstanding). Negative interventions canbe re-framed by open questions that invitethe group to look for positive responsesto the problem raised.

9 Invoke the ground rules (as needed) to helpkeep the discussion on track and inclusive,and to handle disruptive behaviour. Ideally,the group learns to self-regulate. Be awareof who is saying a lot and who not, butdon’t make the quiet participantsuncomfortable by insisting they speak anddon’t mistake silence for assent. Be willingto ride a silence and give people space toreflect on what has been said.

10 Maintain your own impartiality as a model toother participants. Even positive judgementsabout one contribution may block otherparticipants from voicing differing views.Your key role is to let people know theirinputs are appreciated and understood;thank them for their contributions andinvite others. As needed, remindparticipants that ‘we are not here to judgeone another’, and encourge them insteadto try to understand where others arecoming from.

11 If you are recording a discussion on aflipchart, use enough words that the pointwill be clear to someone not in the group.Record each person’s contributions andcheck that you have captured what theymeant. Ensure that the record is legible.Ask people whether they want copies ofwhat has been recorded (these may bephotographed or transcribed).

12 Very diverse groups can bring imbalances inconfidence and knowledge as well asdifferent expertise and perspectives.Handling the power dynamics which canflow from such diversity requires care.Many specialists do not realise how easilythey can silence or patronise those whofeel ‘bamboozled by scientists’ or havedeeply felt opposing views. Cultivate yourability to genuinely hear, empathise withand respect those with very differentbackgrounds or standpoints to your own.

13 Remember that dialogue is not somethingthat is achieved once and for all. It can beelusive, with only fleeting moments ofenhanced understanding and trust. Do notlose heart if dialogue is blocked, butpractice ways of overcoming theobstacles. Try to build on the positivemoments, to create a virtuous circle inwhich dialogue happens increasingly often.

How to design and plan adialogic PE process14 To be ‘fit for purpose’ a dialogic PE process

must be tailored to: the desired outcomes,the needs of the participants, and theavailable resources. Designing andplanning the process demands repeatediterations between substantive andpractical considerations.

15 Understanding the situation is a vital firststep in planning and designing any PEprocess. Key questions include: What areyour aims and objectives? What do weneed to understand about the topic andcontext? Who should/might participateand what’s in it for them? Whatinformation might they need in order toparticipate fully? Are there implicationsfor how you should market and designthe activity? What are the practicalconstrains on what is feasible?

16 Be very clear about your aims andobjectives for the activity. This is vital notonly so you can design a PE processcapable of meeting your aims andobjectives, but also so you can be honestand open with the publics you seek toengage about the ‘promise’ you makethem (see 18 below).

17 Also consider carefully who your publics are,and what motivation they might have toengage with your work. People will onlymake time to discuss your work (or issuesarising) if they have a clear ‘stake’ orinterest in it, and if their lifestyle makesparticipation possible. To engage peoplesuccessfully, you need to cultivate the habitof ‘thinking from the other’, thusrecognising how diverse publics can be:ask yourself, ‘What’s in it for them?’ and‘Where will they be coming from?’ Theseare vital inputs for planning how tomarket and design your PE activityeffectively.

18 In your recruitment and at the outset ofyour activity, convey clearly to yourparticipants what it is that they stand to getout of engaging with you and what your‘promise’ to them is—e.g., how you willtake on board what they say and informthem of what has happened to theircontributions. If you do not honour anddeliver on your promise, you will lose thetrust needed for open dialogue andpeople will not come back for any futurePE activities.

19 Once you have a full understanding of thesituation (15), the next strategic task is to‘frame’ the process as a progression ofquestions or tasks, which take yourparticipants from where they are towhere you and they hope to be. How adialogue is framed can have a hugebearing on whose voices are included orexcluded, on the where the dialogue maybe able to go and on how successful it isin meeting everyone’s objectives.Consider carefully who should beinvolved in making these decisions.

20 Whether the process is a series ofactivities or a single one, planning requirestime and detailed attention to manypractical and logistical considerations.Developing a timeline can be helpful:block out periods when participation isnot feasible, and work out how muchtime is required for the more importantor difficult tasks or questions. Takeaccount of the money and resourcesavailable, including staff and venue. Getinterested parties to read the evolvingplans for inputs as to how to make it aseffective and workable as possible.

21 Don’t over-pack the programme. Everythinggenerally requires more time than youmight imagine, and of necessity, nurturingthe trust needed to achieve genuinedialogue requires un-pressurised time. It’salso a good idea to have room forflexibility, to be able to respond tounexpected developments on the day.

22 When it comes to designing single sessions,start from the question or tasks you wantto address and what you hope it will addto the desired outcomes for your activity.Decide what order and timing isappropriate, how you are going to groupparticipants, and whether each group willaddress the same question/task ordifferent ones. Only choose whattechnique to use once these decisionshave been made. (See 25-30.)

23 Before the event, circulate to participantsany information needed, check that youhave all the materials you will need, andmake sure all staff involved are sufficientlybriefed. Allow plenty of time to set up andclear up on the day, and enlist help withthis.

24 Plan how you will evaluate the activity andallow sufficient time for this. Variousmethods and techniques are available.Ideally you want to get individual feedbackon why people came along, what theygained from the activity, and on whatworked and did not work for them.Include all staff involved, in the finalevaluation, based on their own experienceas well as this feedback. Use this evaluationto draw out any lessons learned andconsider future strategy for PE.

Choosing specific techniques25 Various techniques can be used, or adapted,

to nurture dialogue. The techniques youchoose must be ‘fit for purpose’ and forthe particular groups involved. As with theprocess as a whole, take account of yourobjectives; where your participants arecoming from; your strategic task and/orquestion (19); and practicalities (20).

26 Always select the most straightforwardtechnique to do the job. It is a good idea tohave a shortlist of techniques that mightwork for your purposes, but don’t try tobe too clever and don’t be afraid toadapt or simplify an existing technique.Using a mixture of techniques helps keepthe activity lively and is likely to work fora larger number of people.

27 It is harder to nurture dialogue in largegroup formats than small. Howeverbringing people together in a single largegroup (plenary session) makes sensewhen you need everyone to hear thesame thing—for introductions andinstructions, necessary information,reporting back. When working in smallbreakout groups, avoid time-consumingand repetitive methods of reporting back.

28 The way people are grouped will influencethe nature of the dialogue and likelyoutcomes. Mixing people of differentstandpoints and backgrounds is best forenhancing mutual understanding. Puttingpeople of similar standpoints andbackgrounds together can be a usefulpreface to mixing groups—if there is aneed for in-depth technical discussion ona topic, or to build participants’confidence in talking about a topic.

29 A deliberative dialogue seeks to arrive at adecision. This is likely to require somecombination of future visioning, gatheringand pooling relevant knowledge(s),building understanding, finding commonground, generating ideas for possiblesolutions, making choices, consensusbuilding, action planning, and evaluation.

30 Dialogue on complex or controversial topicsdemands particular attention to encouragingrespectful (non-judgemental) participationof different specialist and non-specialistgroups. It can be important to makespace for different styles of thinking andtypes of contributions, to value an airingof feelings as well as ‘facts’, and negative aswell as positive views.

36 Annex 2Experiences Of Dialogue In Public Engagement Around A Controversial Field

37

The context as we started this project wasthe parliamentary debate about the use ofembryos to produce stem cells in thelaboratory. We social scientists on the projectwere concerned that the debate hadpolarised around ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-science’positions, a framing which we saw asmarginalising other voices (eg those whowere donating embryos) and other potentialissues of concern (eg the possibletransgressing of animal-human boundaries,the possible use of stem cells for cosmeticapplications). The stem cell scientist whocollaborated with us over the proposal wasconcerned that at some point SCR mightsuffer from the kind of big public reaction thatoccurred around GM technology, and thatthis might threaten the further developmentof the field. He saw public engagement (PE)as a way of finding out about any possibleissues of concern, in the hope that theseconcerns could be addressed and any futureopposition averted.

Focus groups with a diverse range ofparticipants were used to get first reactionson a range of possible issues the team hadidentified and to identify any other concerns.We then designed seven PE events onspecific issues which had emerged from thefocus groups: egg donation; donation of foetalmaterial; the creation of animal-human hybridembryos; different sources of stem cells; trustand regulation; commercialisation; hype andhope.

Our aim in all of these events was to enhanceunderstanding in the hope that people’s viewswould evolve as a result and that they wouldbe more likely to take on board thecomplexity of the issues. We sought to dothis by bringing people from different groupsor standpoints together and giving them theopportunity to dialogue on an issue in somedepth. In three of the events the intendedoutcomes also had a deliberative element:

• The public events concerning eggdonation and hybrid embryos coincidedwith an HFEA consultation, so weretopical and had the potential to feedindirectly into policy-making.

• The theme of hype and hope was aspecific concern of patient groups whohad experienced having their hopesunrealistically raised only to be cruellydisappointed. Our event on this broughttogether a small number of patient groupmembers, senior stem cell scientists andpeople from the media. The aim (backedup by email exchanges among the groupbefore and afterwards) was very practical:to produce a memorandum of agreementwhich would encourage both scientistsand the media to be more honest andrespectful towards patient groups in theirreporting of promised benefits fromspeculative research.

The evaluations we conducted of the sevenevents confirmed that our events did enhancepeople’s understanding of complex issues (tovarying degrees), and that the events metmany participants’ motivations for comingalong. Although our ground rules insisted onmutual respect and encouraged participantsto try to understand where others werecoming from, we did not stress the need tosuspend judgement. In the event, some of thepractitioners who participated were moremotivated to speak to wider publics than tolisten, and so were less open tounderstanding and learning from otherparticipants (or did not value their views andexperiences as ‘knowledge’ in the same way).

The following observations provide someinteresting practical insights into what ispossible and what is difficult with respect toPE in general and dialogue in PE in particular.We offer them here in the hope that theymight resonate or serve to pass on ourshared learning:

• Overall some 200 people participated inthe project, from diverse groups. Manywere obvious stakeholders in the sensethat they were directly involved in the fieldand/or stood to be affected by it in someway: stem cell scientists; biotechentrepreneurs and business developers;research nurses; consenting donors ofeggs, embryos and foetal material;members of patient groups that mightbenefit from promised stem cell therapies.Many participants from these groups wereenthusiastic ‘serial engagers’: they came toseveral of our events. They clearlybenefited in terms of building newcontacts and networks with otherstakeholders (the social capital benefit),and many of those who were notscientists clearly also gained in confidenceand ability to handle such interactions (thecapacity building benefit).

• A smaller proportion of our participantswere stakeholders in the broader sense thatthey were simply interested in the field: othersocial and natural scientists and engineers;bioethicists; pro-lifers; and other interestedmembers of the public who happened tohear about the event(s). Recruiting widergroups proved difficult, especially the moredisadvantaged or socially and economicallyexcluded groups in society.

• Size has a big bearing on what you can dowith a group and our events ranged insize. Two were large (90 and 60participants) and had been widelypublicised. Two were closed events with asmall group of selected invitees geared toaddressing a specific issue. The other threewere large enough (30+ participants) tobreak into four discussion groups.

• We did not use any of the ‘fancy’participation methods reported in theliterature (no citizen’s juries or fishbowldiscussions, etc). Four of the eventscombined small group discussion withplenary sessions. The most innovativetechnique we used on two occasions wasto conduct a ‘vote’; this served as a way ofanonymously getting at people’s views ona complex topic, and getting people tothink about how they might handle thecomplexities of a controversial issue if theyhad to make relevant policy. In one, weused plastic counters to get participants tothink about how they would allocateresources to different areas of research. Inanother, we used an electronic votingsystem to get participants to think about aseries of ethically sensitive scenarios.

• Consistently in all the feedback, participantsindicated that they preferred the smallgroup discussions to the large plenarysessions where the ‘expert’ voices tendedto dominate. Our small groups generallymixed people from different backgroundsand standpoints, though in some casesthese were preceded by groups bringinglike people together. Participants generallylearnt a lot from these discussions andoften reported that they would have likedmore time for them.

• Our own reflections on these small groupdiscussions were broadly positive.However, there were occasions when wesuspect some participants weremarginalised or silenced by thejudgemental or forceful interventions ofothers. We worked hard as facilitators tobe inclusive, but were not always impartialin so much as we sometimes madesubstantive contributions to thediscussions. At the time, we were unawareof methods for getting feedback fromsmall groups to plenary without timeconsuming repetitiveness.

• As well as being clear about what our ownaims were for each event, we also thoughtabout why particular groups ofparticipants might be motivated to comealong, and what they stood to get out ofthe event. We stressed that these eventswere not going to be creating policy(other than the indirect contributions inthe three cases indicated earlier).

• The tangible outputs of these events weregenerally reports summarising thediscussions posted on our website, pluspublications on specific themes whichdrew on the transcripts and other recordsof the discussions.

• A large motivation for many participantswas simply to find out more about whatwas going on and to understand betterany related issues. In several of the eventsthere was a demand for relevantinformation to be pre-circulated: this gavemany people the confidence to speak inthe discussion—not only because theywere speaking form some knowledge butalso so they didn’t appear ‘stupid’.Invariably participants reported that theyhad learnt a lot; in particular, manyindicated that they’d learnt how complexthe issue was.

• The events on animal-human hybrids, trustand commercialisation were all themeswith more general relevance to scienceand technology. In these events, webecame aware of the underlying triggersand associations that tend to fuel publicconcerns, and endeavoured to make spacefor these to be voiced. We found it usefulto ground such discussions in somethingspecific (eg the Hwang affair for trust andregulation, and specific companies forcommercialisation).

• Typically our events took place in anevening and lasted no more than 3 hours.There is a trade off between the amountof time people are willing to give tosomething and how much depth onecould achieve. The process was alwaysplanned to be progressive, moving frominitial reactions to the broad issue to morespecific issues, and sometimes (e.g. withtrust and regulation) to practical policy. Itwas important to keep the programmeinteresting and varied.

• We had hoped to do a ‘summing up’event, where people could hear andreflect on what we had found out fromthe earlier events. Unfortunately, we nevergot enough takers for this final event. Wesuspect this was due to ‘engager fatigue’—not least because there was so little wecould offer back to people who have busyand demanding lives.

38 Annex 3Selected Bibliography

39

Acland, Andrew Dialogue by Design: AHandbook of Public and StakeholderEngagement.London: Dialogue By Design 2010 (Available online:http://designer.dialoguebydesign.net/docs/Dialogue_by_Design_Handbook.pdf)

Acland, Andrew, Dialogue Top 10: Principles andCharacteristics of Stakeholder Dialogue inElements.London: The Environment Council. (Available online:http://www.dialoguebydesign.net/docs/articles/PrinciplesandCharacteristicsDialogueTop10.pdf)

Anderson, Rob et al (eds), Dialogue: TheorizingDifference in Communication Studies, ThousandOaks CA: Sage Publications, 2004.

Bohm, David, On Dialogue (ed. Lee Nichol),London: Routledge, 1996, paperback edition,2007.

Bone, Zelma, Crockett, Judith & Hodge,Sandra. ‘Deliberation forums: a pathway forpublic participation’, refereed conferenceproceedings, Stream 1: Approaches, Methodsand Tools: Australasian Pacific ExtensionNetwork 2006 International Conference,Beechworth Victoria, March 2006.

Bono, Edward de, Six Thinking Hats, London:Penguin Books, 1987, new edition withpreface, 2010.

Chalmers, Robert, Participatory Workshops: A sourcebook of 21 sets of ideas and activities,London: Earthscan, 2002.

Creighton, James L, The Public ParticipationHandbook, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005

Involve, People and Participation: How to putcitizens at the heart of decision-making,London: Involve, 2005.

Isaacs, William, Dialogue and the Art of ThinkingTogether, Bantam Doubleday Dell, first edition,1999, new edition, 2006.

BIS: Department for Business, Innovation andSkills: The Government’s Approach to PublicDialogue on Science and Technology: GuidingPrinciples for Public Dialogue, Sciencewise-ERC,London

Patterson, Kerry et al, Crucial Conversations:Tools for Talking when Stakes are High, NewYork: McGraw Hill, 2002.

Pearce, Kimberly A, Making Better SocialWorlds: Engaging in and Facilitating DialogicCommunication. Redwood City, CA: PearceAssociates, 2002.

Research Councils UK, Dialogue with thePublic: Practical Guidelines, People Science andPolicy Ltd and Taylor Nelson Sofres, 2002.

Trompenaars, Alfons & Hampden-Turner,Charles, Riding the waves of culture:understanding cultural diversity in business,London: Nicholas Brealey, 1997.

Useful websites

Involve: www.involve.org.uk

People and Participation: www.peopleandparticipation.net

Sciencewise: www.sciencewise.org.uk

Dialogue Designer: http://designer.dialoguebydesign.net/

Dialogue by Design: www.dialoguebydesign.net

The Environment Council: www.the-environment-council.org.uk/resources

40 41

Note about materials: Many dialoguetechniques involve gathering and sortingresponses to sets of questions, and many ofthese techniques make use of a wall spaceor flipchart paper or ‘sticky walls’ plus Post-its or coloured paper in various sizes andsuitable pens. Having the right materials forthe job is a vital part of running an effectivedialogue activity.

Appreciative Inquiry

This organizational development process seeksto build organisations around what works, ratherthan trying to fix what doesn't. The basic idea isdialogic—to put aside the negatives for themoment so as to explore the scope for buildingcommon ground around some positives. As such,Appreciative Inquiry could well be useful in PEwhere the aim is to resolve a challenging issuewith conflicting views, or to explore the scope forde-polarising a difficult issue or debate.

Brainstorming

To brainstorm something is to generate a freeflow of creative thought. The idea is that bygenerating as many options as possible peopleare more likely to find one that works. Not to beconfused with Listing (below).

How it works:

• Keep the time short (5 – 10 minutes)

• Agree with everyone that there is to beno comment or discussion on any of thesuggestions until time is up; they are freeto make contributions without fear ofbeing judged or censured.

• Ask everyone to shout out ideas and nothold back. Record these on a flipchartsheet as quickly and clearly as you can.(The task of recording may be delegated.)

• Keep the pace quick and energised; clapyour hands or bounce a bit to lift the paceif it flags!

• Shortly before time is up, ask if anyonewho hasn’t said anything yet wants to.

It is possible to kick-start a brainstormingexercise with a prompt list of good ideas thathave been gathered from elsewhere; emphasisethat this is not a list of proposals. If thebrainstorming is part of an exercise in finding asolution, you may then want to cluster theideas together (link with a symbol or number)and select the best for more discussion.Brainstorm again to improve the ideas.

Buzz

The Buzz is a quick discussion in groups of 2 or3. Just ask participants to share first reactions orbriefly exchange views or experiences on aparticular question for a few minutes. It can beused after a presentation, to ‘wake people up’after being passive, and get them to begin toprocess what they have just heard, without agreat deal of organisation or effort. It can alsoserve as a ‘warm up’ step before a longerexercise involving a larger group (but on thesame topic), since it’s easier to start talking insmaller groups.

Carousel discussion

This is a very effective and time efficient tool forpooling knowledge and ideas, since each smallgroup builds on the efforts of previous smallgroups in addressing a key set of questions—rather than each group re-inventing the wheelindependently of the other. In this way, feedbackfrom group to group is built in to the exercise,which avoids time-consuming and potentiallyrepetitive ‘reporting back’. The exercise is a livelywarmer up since the groups have to physicallymove around the room from question toquestion. It can also help to build understandingwhere participants bring differing perspectives orexperiences to a complex or controversial topic.

How it works:

• 3-5 flipcharts are positioned at ‘stations’around the room each headed with onedifferent but related question.

• Ideally, there is same number of groups asquestions (it is possible to have fewergroups than questions). The groups rotatearound these stations until each one hasbeen visited.

• Each group has a different colour markerpen for recording their answers to thequestions, which is done by a facilitatorstationed at each question. The facilitatormay clarify the contributions of previousgroups if needed.

• The idea is that each successive groupreads and reflects on, elaborates and addsto the answers of the previous groups, soproducing a fairly comprehensive view in ashort period of time.

• Each ‘turn’ on the carousel is given a littleless time than the previous one becausethey (should) have less work to do. Allowadditional time for the moving around!

• The flipchart sheets with the responses tothe set of questions represent a kind ofcumulative wisdom. It can be useful to bringall the responses to the front of the roomfor a recap/review of the responses, or toallow time for participants to read andreflect on them informally over a break.

Crucial Conversations

The book of this title describes a crucialconversation as one which occurs when stakesare high, opinions vary and emotions run high. Theauthors, Kerry Paterson and colleagues, offervarious techniques for conducting suchconversations effectively, all of which involvemutual listening and understanding through directface-to-face engagement, with an emphasis onmaking the encounters ‘safe’ for people to speakopenly. These techniques can be helpful inresponding to all sorts of public and privateconflict, including controversial areas of research.

Future Visioning

Future Visioning can be a useful approachearly on in a PE activity. Its merit is thatpeople move away from their immediateconcerns and entrenched positions—or atleast temporarily put them aside—in order tothinking more positively about where theywould like things to go in the longer term.The result can be not only a very positivevision for the future, but also the discoverythat even people with opposing positionshave some shared needs or wishes. This maywell reveal surprising common ground noone had thought of before.

Various techniques may be used. WithMetaplan, for example, the strategic questioncould be something like: ‘It’s 2020, [… yourtopic …] has moved on, and you like whatyou see. What three things please you most?

Listing

In contrast to Brainstorming, this is a way ofpooling existing knowledge rather than acreative process to generate new knowledge.Listing can be used to capture insights fromdiverse groups bringing different expertises,experiences or perspectives on the topic: e.g.‘What information do we need to make aninformed contribution to this…?’ It can also beused to work through responses to a logicalsequence of questions.

How it works:

• Give everyone a question or list ofquestions, or write them on a wall space.

• Work through the sequence of questions,asking everyone to say what they knowabout them.

• Run through at a steady pace; somediscussion is fine but keep on track.

Metaplan (or Card Storming)

Developed by E Schnelle as a creativity tool,the Metaplan technique is also used inorganisational settings and in participationand deliberative exercises, e.g. for problemsolving, agenda setting and future visioning.

Metaplan is a two-stage exercise. The firstinvolves individual brainstorming withoutjudgement or interaction, to come up with 3(say) responses to a set question. The secondstage is an interactive clustering exercise inwhich the whole group makes decisionsabout which individual contributions sittogether and what categories areappropriate.

The Metaplan technique is more effective thanconventional group discussion methods in severalrespects. Perhaps most crucially, the first stageensures that everyone contributes, and that allinputs are ‘heard’ and equally weighted. The factthat participants respond individually withoutany interaction avoids the tendency of ‘groupnorming’ behaviour. In so much as writingpreserves anonymity, this stage is also likely toencourage participants to be open, possiblywriting things they would not be willing to voice.

The second stage tends to involve participantsmore deeply in the group process. By consideringeveryone’s contributions and working towards ajointly supported outcome (the clusters), theprocess can reveal new insights or ideas notpreviously considered. It is also a faster way ofdoing group discussions and, because it involvesstanding up, helps to keep the blood circulating!

How it works:

• Compose a strategic question you thinkwill provide an effective peg for thepurposes of the particular moment in yourPE activity (see eg Future Visioning or, foragenda setting, ‘What 3 things would youlike to see discussed?’, ‘What 3 things doyou want out of this process?’).

• For stage 1, ask participants to write downthree responses to the question clearly,each response on a separate card or Post-it. NB: It is absolutely vital that thewriting is bold and large enough that thecontributions can be read by everyone instage 2; use black felt pens (eg bingo pens)and large Post-its or cards that encouragepeople to write in big letters.

• Allow adequate quiet time for everyoneto come up with their responses. Thecards or Post-its are then placed randomlyon the designated wall space headed withthe question.

• For stage 2, draw everyone around the wallspace in a semi-circle, close enough thateveryone can read the responses. Thefacilitator asks participants what similarpoints they see and moves similar Post-its orcards together accordingly. As the clustersbegin to emerge, the facilitator then asks forsuggestions as to what headings areappropriate for each one – which they writeup, marking a ‘cloud’ around the cluster.

• Facilitating this exercise requires care.Throughout stage 2, you should check thatparticipants are happy with where individualresponses are placed, and what headings arechosen for each cluster. It is important notto steer, only to ask for suggestions,confirmation and clarification where needed.Do not delimit or head clusters too quickly.

• You should resist any tendency to limit thenumber of clusters. It produces a morenuanced picture if none of the clusters aretoo big, and you should be willing tocreate a cluster of a single response ifthere is no obvious fit elsewhere.

• Sometimes participants will clarify a Post-itor card they wrote, but you should stressthat participants do not have to ‘own’ anyof the Post-its – so as to retain the optionof anonymity.

• The outcome will be a visible image of thediscussion for all to see. This might be asufficient output in itself, or it mightconstitute an input to a subsequent stagein your process.

Annex 4Useful Techniques And Approaches for Dialogue in Public Engagement

42 43

Mini-metaplan

This is a truncated version of the fullMetaplan.

• Stage 1 is the same as the above, in thateveryone writes their responses to a setquestion on Post-its or cards, which areplaced on a headed wallspace.

• However, in stage 2, the facilitator quicklyclusters the contributions and comes upwith headings, without any input from theparticipants who contributed.

This obviously means there is no groupprocess towards a jointly supportedoutcome, but it is a quick way of getting allparticipants to ‘speak’ on a particular questionand making their responses visible.

Mini-metaplan is also an efficient feedbackmethod where separate small groups have beendiscussing a different question or subject(contrast with Nominal Group feedbackwhere each group is discussing the samequestion or subject).

How it works as a feedback technique:

• Some (10) minutes before the end of thediscussion time, give each member of thegroup 3 Post-its or cards, and ask them towrite down the 3 points raised during thediscussion which they consider mostimportant to feed back to the wider group.

• Within each group, collect all the Post-itsand cluster similar ideas together andcome up with appropriate headings. Thefacilitator may do this with the group ifthere’s time, or without their input.

• In plenary, a spokesperson for each groupreads out the headings plus 1 or 2 Post-itsto illustrate.

Nominal Group technique

This time-saving ‘round robin’ method forreporting back is useful where several smallgroups have been discussing the same questionor subject in parallel before regrouping inplenary, and where you want to collate a singlelist of key points. It avoids the tediousduplication where every group reports the sameor similar points one after the other, but ensuresthat everyone is involved in choosing which keypoints to report back.

How it works:

• Some (10) minutes before the end of theallotted time, get the groups to identify aset number of key points (max 10) theywant to feed back to the wider group.They will be choosing from a list of pointsrecorded on flipchart sheets during thepreceding discussion.

• In order to avoid duplication within thegroup, get each member to select onepoint – until you have the requisitenumber of points, all of which should bestarred by the facilitator. You may then getthe group to rank the points, or circle thetop (say) three.

• If appropriate, reassure participants thatnone of the points recorded in the smallgroup discussion will be lost, even if theyare not on the list of key points.

• Bring everyone back into plenary and askeach group to sit together with theirflipchart sheets closely visible (e.g. on thefloor in front of them).

• The lead facilitator then does a secondround robin, asking for one point fromeach group in turn without them repeatingany previous ones. In 3-5 rounds all thegroups’ key points will usually have beenincluded.

• There are two ways of recording thiscumulative list. Either the lead facilitatorwrites a new list, or the small groups couldbe asked (before the plenary) to writetheir 10 key points on Post-its or cards,which can then be stuck on the plenarywall space.

Role plays

A role play is a simulation exercise around aspecific situation or issue which contains twoor more different perspectives or interests;these constitute the ‘parts’ played by theparticipants. The idea is that by attempting todo something you understand more deeplywhat’s involved, than when being told aboutit. Role plays can be an effective technique tohelp people develop specific skills and/orunderstanding. It can also be used as a publicengagement tool to help people grapple with acomplex issue (e.g. we developed a role playon the ‘rush to clinic’ in stem cell research).

How it works:

• The most successful role plays focus ondeveloping a particular understanding orskill set; this objective must be clear andunderstood by all. The situations should berealistic and relevant to the participants,and avoid technical content that mightdistract them. Trainers must specify at theoutset that the aim is not to assess themso that people do not feel nervous about‘performing’.

• The situation or issue being simulated iswritten up as a prepared brief, and thedifferent perspectives or interests in it arehanded out to the individuals, who willcome together to converse ‘in role’. Eachperson will have a particular objective orobjectives they want to fulfil, which maywell be in conflict with those of the otherplayers. In effect, the players are trying toachieve the outcome they desire in asituation where, because it involvesinteracting with others, they are notentirely in control and do not have all therelevant information.

• A good written brief will help keep therole play focused and on track. It shouldcontain enough information for all partiesto engage in a believable and relevantconversation, in line with the trainingobjectives. Give as much detail as isnecessary: too little and there won't beenough to sustain a conversation; toomuch and people will be swamped withinformation, most of which they won'tneed or won't remember.

• The role play will be allocated a certainamount of time. You might at some pointduring the process add in vital bit ofinformation in order to see whether thistakes the conversation in a new direction(e.g. FDA approval just granted to the firststem cell application).

• Where there is a training objective,feedback is vital to the learning process. Theplayers should give their feedback first –their experience of what happened andwhy, what went well or badly for them andwhy. If there have been observers, theythen give their feedback; a detached viewcan be very insightful. The feedback shouldbe relevant to the training objectives,specific to a certain moment or interaction,and achievable as to how it might havebeen done differently or more successfully.

• Where the objective is enhancedunderstanding of a complex issue, it can behelpful to do a debrief. This should startwith the participants saying what they gotfrom the exercise—in terms of learning,understanding or changing their views.

Presentation and briefing sessions

By definition, presentations and other forms ofinformation provision are not interactive, butthey may be needed in certain circumstances:

• to set the scene or instruct participantsfor the activity

• to provide information participants needor have asked for in order to engagemeaningfully and confidently with the topic

• in an ongoing deliberative process, toreport back on information gained ordecisions made.

Some planning and forethought is needed toensure that such sessions do the job withoutlosing the interest of participants and withoutnegating the dialogic ethic by creating an‘expert-lay divide’:

• Brief speakers in advance, insisting thatthey not overrun the allotted time; keepthem to time if necessary.

• Encourage the judicious use of clear slidesand/or other visuals and, if possible, ask tosee these in advance to check for clarityand brevity. It is important to ensure thatthe presentation will not be unhelpfullyskewing or framing the discussion in anyway, unless the point is to present aparticular view. Keep slides simple; if anycomplex tables and the like are required,produce these as handouts.

• Any detailed information required should beavailable and circulated to be read before orafterwards. Many participants find it easier totake in information quietly at their leisurethan under pressure at an event.

Generally time is allowed for questioningspeakers. It is a good idea if this is restrictedto questions of clarification, rather than beingused as an opportunity for participants to(re)state their positions. Discussion of theissues is best left to small group sessions if it isto be inclusive and move beyond ‘positions’.

People often feel reticent to ask questions,especially when the group is large or containsmajor power imbalances (eg expert-layimbalances) or when there is significantconflict or tension about the issue in question.One way around this is to distribute whitecards on each seat and ask people to writetheir question down, then collect the cardsand read them out to the speaker. This has theadded advantage that a record is available ofall the questions asked—especially helpful ifthere is not time to take all questions.

Sliding scales

This is a fairly quick way of gauging how peoplefeel about something, and ensuring thateveryone’s views or feelings are registered. Forexample, it can be used as part of anevaluation, to gauge how skilled orknowledgeable people feel both before andafter an activity. Or it can be used during anactivity, eg to check how inclusive a discussionhas been, as in ‘I feel I am being listened to’.

How it works:

• A simple question is chosen for whichresponses may be gauged on a linear scalefrom ‘a lot’ to ‘none’. The question iswritten up on a wall space, along with acalibrated sliding scale (e.g. from 0 to 10).

• Participants are asked to indicate whereon the scale they sit.

• The simplest way to do this is forparticipants to put a cross below theappropriate number on the scale.

• If it is important to avoid a group normingeffect, you can ask participants to first writethe number on a sticky label and then geteveryone to put their labels on the scale. Ifanonymity is also important, get people toput their numbered sticky label in a box orcup and a facilitator can then place all thelabels on the scale later on.

Annex 4Useful Techniques And Approaches for Dialogue in Public Engagement

44 Annex 4Useful Techniques And Approaches for Dialogue in Public Engagement

45

Thinking Hats

Proposed by Edward de Bono in his book SixThinking Hats, this technique is widely used inboth public and private sector organisationsas a thinking tool for group discussion (andfor individual thinking) about difficult issues.The underlying principle is that there are sixways of thinking about something, to whichhe attaches different colours:

Information (white): considers solely what information andknowledge is available and/or needed; whatare the facts?

Feeling and emotions (red): instinctive gut reactions or statements ofemotional feelings, without involving anyjustification

Critical judgment (black): logic applied to identifying flaws or barriers,seeking mismatch

Positive judgment (yellow): logic applied to identifying benefits, seekingharmony

Creativity (green):statements of provocation and investigationgeared towards coming up with new ideas,seeing where a thought goes

Thinking (blue): thinking about thinking, eg what process dowe need in order to come to a solution oragreement?

In practice, some people tend to lean to oneor more of these ways of thinking, and groupdiscussions are often characterised by clashesbetween the different ways of thinking—clashes which tend to block progress,whether to understanding the problemdeeply or to finding a solution. The ThinkingHats technique takes people through each ofthe ways of addressing the issue or problemin turn, an approach de Bono calls ‘parallelthinking’. The coloured hats are used as ametaphor for the different thinking styles. Thewikipedia on ‘Thinking Hats’ concludes that“collaboration is a key benefit of thistechnique, because everyone is focused on aparticular way of thinking at one time”.

This approach could be particularly helpful inpublic engagement activities, in two regards.First, where negative thinking – always seeingthe problems – dominates and blocks progress,the time taken to engage in positive thinkingcan open unexpected avenues forward andreveal unexpected common ground, as doesAppreciative Inquiry. Second, parallel thinkingcan serve to redress, if not overcome, thetendency for scientists (as White Hat‘rationalistic’ thinkers) to dismiss or devalue the(deemed to be ‘emotional’) Red Hat gutreactions of non-specialists. This is arguably acommon block to mutual understanding andrespect between experts and ‘lay’ publics. Theequal emphasis given to ‘facts’ and emotionalfeelings means that deeply held views are voicedas legitimate and important input. In principle, italso obliges those who don’t share these viewsto at least try to understand ‘where they arecoming from’.

How it works

• Depending on the topic and the group, aprocess will be designed that uses someor all of the ‘thinking hats’ in anappropriate order and with questionstailored to the issue at hand. The wiki onThinking Hats and de Bono’s book givepossible sequences for different purposes.

• The most simple use of this technique isto spend time on each of the chosen‘thinking hats’ in turn – which can besignalled either by individuals wearing hatsof the relevant colour or by sitting a hat(or proxy!) of the relevant colour in themiddle of the group.

• The process is explained and/or agreed atthe outset and the process is reviewedand evaluated at the end, with the ‘bluehat’ (about the thinking process). Thefacilitator is in ‘blue hat’ mode throughout.Bad facilitating and failure to get ‘buy in’ tothe process can result in people feelingrailroaded.

• Often the process spends a reasonablelength of time on the ‘white hat’ – in orderto establish a common understanding ofwhat is known about the issue, and possiblywhat information is needed. If this is donewell (i.e. all available info is there), less timemay be needed on the other hats.

• The ‘black hat’ (critical judgment) isgenerally followed by, or alternates with,the ‘yellow hat’ (positive judgment) and/orthe ‘green hat’ (new ideas)—so as tomove the process forward. The outcomeof such shifts can be surprising.

• It is generally recommended that timespent on the ‘red hat’ (feelings) is shortest,simply to avoid judgment or rationalisationentering. But the ‘red hat’ can be usedflexibly in and out of the other hats—e.g.as a check on whether people feel OK ornot about where the discussion is going.Post-its can be used to ensure thateveryone’s emotions are visible (like thefirst stage of Metaplan).

• Some method of recording the responsesto each ‘thinking hat’ is helpful, so thatthese are remembered, to be drawn on atlater stages of the process.

Wendy Faulkner

Honorary Beltane FellowInstitute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation (ISSTI)University of Edinburgh

August 2011

Go to: www.edinburghbeltane.net/content/dialoguehandbookTo download an electronic copy of this handbookTo order more hardcopies of this handbook andTo access all the links in this handbook

Funded by

Beacons for Public Engagement are funded by the UK higher educationfunding councils, Research Councils UK, and the Wellcome Trust.

Partners

Edinburgh BeltaneBeacon for Public EngagementDarwin Building, The Kings BuildingsEdinburgh EH9 3JR

Tel: 0131 650 4874Email: info@edinburghbeltane.netTwitter : twitter.com/edbeltane

www.edinburghbeltane.net

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body,Registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336 09.11 J3045