Tools for Knowledge Synthesis – Dialogue Gabriele Bammer

Knowledge synthesis bringing together relevant knowledge from diverse disciplines and stakeholders (those affected + decision makers) clarify diverse aspects of problem, plus relationships and interconnections synthesis of facts, judgments, visions, values, interests, epistemologies, time scales, geographical scales, world views… 2

Q3 How? 3 Dialogue-based Model-, product-, vision-based Common metrics -based Reduction Banishment Acceptance Exploitation Surrender Denial Communication Advocacy Engagement Fresh thinking Importance of critique ie not uncritical handmaide ns

4 Dialogue-based Compilation of dialogue methods Toolkit for knowledge co-production

Compilation of dialogue methods Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods by McDonald, Bammer & Deane 2009 Available free on-line at Peter Deane David McDonald 5

What is dialogue? To ‘jointly create meaning and shared understanding’ through conversation (Franco 2006) Structured conversation and group size What is not dialogue or not relevant to knowledge synthesis? Franco, L. A. 2006, ‘Forms of conversation and problem structuring methods: a conceptual development’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 57, pp. 813–21. 6

Dialogue Lots of dialogue methods, but not specifically focused on knowledge synthesis Also relevant to unknowns, but few specifics 7

What is not dialogue or not relevant to knowledge synthesis? In Principled negotiation Deliberation Out Most negotiation Persuasion Debate Knowledge gathering only eg focus groups Stakeholder involvement / community consultation only Communication only Policy influence only 8

Two classes of dialogue methods Gaining a broad understanding: integrating judgments Honing in on a particular aspect of a problem: visions, world views, interests, values 9

Dialogue methods for integrating judgments Judgment = facts + personal goals + moral values + sense of what is best for others as well as themselves Yankelovich, D. 1999, The Magic of Dialogue. Transforming conflict into cooperation, Simon & Schuster, New York. citizens’ jury consensus conference consensus development panel Delphi technique future search conference most significant change technique nominal group technique open space technology scenario planning soft systems methodology 10

How to differentiate between methods? Specific purpose: eg evaluating a program or developing scenarios Participants: experts, community, mix Participants: number Locus of control and power differentials etc

Dialogue methods for understanding particular aspects of a problem appreciative inquiry – integrating visions strategic assumption surfacing and testing – integrating world views principled negotiation – integrating interests ethical matrix – integrating values 12

Using dialogue methods Flexibility and improvisation Start with broad methods; use particular only for specific purpose Boundaries are not hard and fast Combine – sequentially or nested 13

Nominal Group Technique 1. Generating ideas: each individual in the group silently generates ideas and writes them down 2. Recording ideas: group members engage in a round-robin feedback session to concisely record each idea 3. Discussing ideas: each recorded idea is then discussed to obtain clarification and evaluation 4. Voting on ideas: individuals vote privately on the ranking of the ideas, and the group decision is made based on these rankings 14

Principled negotiation… 1 1. separate the people from the problem 2. focus on interests, not positions 3. generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do 4. insist that the results are based on some objective standard. 15

Principled negotiation… 2 1.separate the people from the problem - emotion - perception - communication 2. focus on interests, not positions - look for shared interests and real differences (Kumela’s example) 16

Principled negotiation… 3 3. generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do People find this hard to do Obstacles: - premature judgment - searching for a single answer - assumption of a ‘fixed pie’ - not seeing as shared problem with shared solution 17

Principled negotiation… 4 4. insist that the results are based on some objective standard: -Look for fair solution based on the merits -Yield to principle not pressure 18

Appreciative enquiry… 1 1. In every society, organisation or group, something works. 2. What we focus on becomes our reality. 3. Reality is created in the moment, and there are multiple realities. 4. The act of asking questions of an organisation or group influences the group in some way. 19

Appreciative enquiry… 2 5. People have more confidence and comfort to journey to the future (the unknown) when they carry forward parts of the past (the known). 6. If we carry forward parts of the past, they should be what is best about the past. 7. It is important to value differences. 8. The language we use creates our reality. 20

Appreciative enquiry… 3 appreciating and valuing the best of ‘what is’ envisioning what ‘might be’ dialoguing ‘what should be’ envisioning ‘what will be’. This covers the ‘4-D’ cycle of appreciative inquiry: discovery, dream, design and destiny. 21

22 Dialogue-based Compilation of dialogue methods Toolkit for knowledge co-production

23 Toolkit for knowledge co-production producing_knowledge

Exercise Which kinds of dialogue methods are being used in the group? Could dialogue methods be helpful for some cases? 24