THE POLISH AND DUTCH TESTS TESTED GOOD PRACTICES THE AMSTERDAM MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2014 FUNDACJA CITIZEN PROJECT/ EZZEV FOUNDATION

GOOD PRACTICE 1 Promoting individuals saying: Sometimes I make mistakes Sometimes my motivation is egoistic I am part of the problem

TESTED IN NL AND PL In writing online (NL): only offline reactions In video online (NL): only offline reactions On air (national radio in PL): great discussion Live in groups (Conference Gdansk for trainers; in workshops Gdynia with trainers, senior citizens; at school Gdansk with teacher and students) Shame, laughter Reflection Great discussions with instructors, among themselves Informal one-on-one contact with trainers, marketers (NL): great dialogues With football hooligans (NL): Shame, laughter

ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (1) Sometimes I make mistakes Everyone makes mistakes but the key is to fix them I'm not perfect. I'm only human It's not like I make everything perfectly, but I try to get better I often makes mistakes Experience tells me I rarely make mistakes

ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (2) Sometimes my motivation is egoistic Everyone has to be satisfied, even me It's also in my best interest, but we can both benefit Often, in actions, I think only about myself Sometimes I notice that my motivation is egoistic I take care of others but I also take care of myself

ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (3) I am part of the problem - I'm not perfect - I know that I've done mischief - My habits are part of the problem with interpersonal relations

CONCLUSIONS This good practice rather works in live contact and is ineffective online

GOOD PRACTICE 2 C2C/ citizen to citizen – dialogue training First 90 seconds silence to feel the duration 2 people sit opposite each other One asks the other answers – fate decides who has which role Rules of behavior are established: listening, good will, honesty, respect, patience, being interested Goal: establish what the two have in common and on what they differ on a given theme (social exclusion) Duration: 90 seconds Evaluation by a trainer afterwards

TESTED In workshops (Gdynia) with trainers and 2 groups of seniors: -Lively dialogues -Intense listening, intense searching for the right words -The hardest for professionals: they lapse into techniques -Hard for individuals who are in a hierarchical relationship

CONCLUSION This good practice is great to let individuals in a non-hierarchical relationship exchange opinions. Professionals tend to hide behind what they’ve learned before.

GOOD PRACTICE 3 Intervention in online discussions -Providing moderate alternatives -Providing doubt -Asking for more time, more reflection (proposing “slow dialogue”)

TESTED Online in the Dutch Zwarte Pieten-discussie -Great distrust – accusations of trolling -Great aggression – you’re a hypocrite afraid to have a clear opinion

CONCLUSION Slow dialogue does not work online.

GOOD PRACTICE 4 Publishing essays Publishing questionnaires

TESTED Publication of articles online – on Slideshare - on the Zwarte Pieten discussion: -[essay] 2 weeks ago: 207 views -[essay] 4 months ago: 141 views -[press release] 4 months ago: 401 views -[PPT essay] 4 months ago: 355 views -[good practices & literature overview] 4 months ago: 194 -No discussion Questionnaire published (Surveymonkey - distribution by well-connected members in the network): -Participants: 110 in PL; 472 in NL -Results published (NL): 536 views -Discussion with the distributors not with the authors

QUESTIONNAIRE PL Questionnaire published (Surveymonkey - distribution by well-connected members in the network) - Participants: 34 Questionnaire handed out during workshops and conference: Conference Gdansk for trainers – Participants: 53 workshops Gdynia with trainers, senior citizens – Participants: 23 Total number of participants: 110 Age: 20 – 70+ Mostly with higher education

QUESTIONNAIRE PL (2) - Many respondents wrote that they either are not interested in the subject or there are more important issues not being discussed - They describe it as a work of art, symbol of freedom, tolerance, equality - They see proponents & opponents as normal people fighting for their rights and believes - They think that the discussion should stop – it would be bether for everyone and there are more urging matters than rainbow - There were few radical responses against the rainbow, that „zoophiles, murderers, thieves will be trying to make a monument for themselves”

CONCLUSION An online questionnaire about a real taboo subject does not work but about an explosive subject does work. Articles on an explosive subject are read but not discussed – or maybe that’s the effect I [Onno] have. In 6 years of being a journalist I got 2 reactions, 1 by my cousin in Australia who found me for private reasons.

ANNEX – PL RESULTS

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (2)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (3)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (4)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (5)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (6)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (7)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (8)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (9)