dialogue & deliberation Oliver Escobar University of Edinburgh & What Works Scotland St Andrews, 21 st March 2015

Outline Context: study /practice of participatory & deliberative democracy, governance and co- production Mixing communication studies and political science Conceptual approach to D+D Applications: courses and cases

Normative context In participatory democracy… “…citizens govern themselves directly, not necessarily at every level and in every instance, but frequently enough and in particular when basic policies are being decided and when significant power is being deployed. This is carried out through institutions designed to facilitate ongoing civic participation in agenda-setting, deliberation, legislation, and policy implementation…” Benjamin R. Barber, Strong democracy, 1984

Society as a web of communication patterns Different patterns of communication create different interpersonal contexts Communication is not only instrumental, but also consequential: Importance of what gets done (results, outputs) but also what gets made (relationships, contexts) and how it gets made (through what communication patterns; with what consequences)

Communication patterns “emergent functions that, once developed, maintain their boundaries and resist change by actively attracting episodes that share their central characteristics and repelling those that differ or would change them” (Pearce 2007:158) A facilitator fosters desirable patterns AND detects and alters undesirable patterns

 Exchanging monologues  Pre-packaged arguments  Dominant voices  Posturing  Specialised jargon  Avoidance  Polarisation and oversimplification  Confrontational exchanges Communication patterns in public discourse: common rituals + pitfalls

Contrasting approaches to interpersonal communication DebateDialogueDeliberation Seeks to promote opinions and gain majority support Seeks to build understanding and relationships Seeks common ground in order to solve problems Participants argue, express, persuade and compete Participants listen, exchange, reach across, reflect Participants frame and weigh options, and make choices Outcome: win/lose Outcome: no decision Outcome: win/win

Debate Dominant pattern: ADVOCACY Confrontational forms of communication Certainty Professional expertise as superior knowledge Outcome orientated Communication as message-transmission Dialogue Dominant pattern: INQUIRY Collaborative forms of communication Curiosity / Openness Multiple forms of knowledge (e.g. local, experiential) Process orientated Communication as co- creation of meaning and relationships Communication / contrasting ideal types

Dialogue (Escobar 2011) A form of non-polarised discourse that focuses on building understanding and relationships Creation of safe spaces Suspension of assumptions and automatic response (assimilation/opposition) Finding common ground / exploring differences Co-creation of shared meanings and language Collaborative inquiry Storytelling Understanding the contribution of emotions

Deliberation Making informed and reasoned decisions Seeking agreement or consensus Re-examining and (perhaps) changing preferences Giving (and taking) public reasons Mapping and evaluating alternatives Information, evidence

Why combine dialogue and deliberation? Some critiques of deliberation: Internal exclusion (Young 2001): emphasis on reasoned/articulated exchanges privileges certain participants and excludes other forms of expression (eg, testimony, storytelling) Often dominated by ‘debate’ – advocacy dynamics. Risk of not exploring issues and perspectives in depth Overly ‘rational’: No room for emotions When designing participatory processes and forums, a dialogue phase before the deliberative phase can help to address these weaknesses (see Escobar 2011 Chapter 6)

In practice the challenge is to facilitate communication dynamics that balance advocacy and inquiry

Dialogue and Deliberation

PIN diagram (Andrew Acland) Positions Interest & values Needs & fears Win-Win Win-Lose visibility line

applications courses and cases

Beacons for Public Engagement – funded by the UK funding councils, Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust Embedding a culture of public engagement in Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s). Edinburgh Beltane Beacon North-East Manchester Wales Beacon CUE East UCL The National Coordinating Centre

. D+D course with researchers, academics, public engagement practitioners, science communicators, knowledge brokers, policy workers, community activists, scientists… Pilot: 2009 Current programme delivered 20 times since 2010 Over 250 participants + MSc module version

Brain Imaging Deliberative Dialogue 2010

Deliberative workshops - COSLA Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy 2014: -Community Councils -Third Sector -Faith Groups

Deliberative Dialogue process with Third Sector Interfaces / VAS 2015

Citizens’ Juries on wind farm developme nt

dialogue and deliberation seek to disrupt communication patterns that 1) perpetuate power inequalities 2) and prevent public participation in democracy from becoming meaningful and consequential A concluding note on ‘creating artificial conversations’

Thank you! to get in