On Dialogue

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

While I was attending the Upper Midwest APA Conference in Dubuque, Iowa, to speak about "Planning Conversations from Coast to Coast" (reporting on my Route 50 travels this Summer), I also sat in on some fascinating sessions.

Several focused on ways in which planners can promote dialogue. A wide array of techniques were discussed, with names like: study circles; world cafe; appreciative inquiry (something I just reported on); future search; and open space technology (and this "open space" has nothing to do with open space and farmland preservation!).

One of the key goals of all these techniques, as David Boyd (a Senior Planner for MSA Professional Services) put it, is to "create trust."

Linda Stoll of the Center for Land Use Education in Stevens Point, Wisconsin, picked up on this, and noted that it's important to be clear on your goals and on the public's role in the process. The worst thing planners can do is sell the importance of public participation and then ignore what people had to say.

Anna Haines, Director of the Center for Land Use Education (photo on left) described the use of study circles in several Wisconsin communities. Community members met informally in small groups of eight to twelve, plus a facilitator, once a week focusing on a specific topic -- in this case, how their communities might become more ecologically oriented. This allowed time for learning -- both from shared resource materials and from each other.

As Haines noted, you can get creative results from bringing a diverse group of people together in this way -- while building a stronger sense of community.

Another technique many of you probably haven't heard of (I certainly hadn't until recently) is called "open space technology."

As Stoll explained, it's a process "wholly owned and run by the participants." Those attending set the agenda for the day, lead the discussions, and come up with the results. In other words, the public runs the show. It can be a dynamic process, Stoll noted, suitable to gatherings of even hundreds of people. The technique works best, she added, "when people feel impassioned about the topic." [for a bit more on open space technology, see a post on the eParticipation blog].

But those in government often have cold feet about sponsoring this kind of "participant-driven" process, Stoll acknowledged, since they "must be willing to live with what the participants create."

Frank DiNovo, of the Champaign County (Illinois) Regional Planning Commission spoke about his county's experience with "deliberative democracy" in a major visioning project called big.small.all. DiNovo stressed the importance of it being a public-private collaboration. He also noted that "what gets people to attend meetings is phone calls, not publicity" -- a good reminder about the value of those time-consuming, but essential, personal contacts.

I came out of both the CommunityMatters and Upper Midwest APA conferences excited to hear that planners and others are thinking creatively about ways to promote community dialogue. I'd welcome feedback from any of you with experience in one of these participatory techniques, either as an organizer or participant. What works ... and what doesn't.

p.s. David Boyd suggested the following Web sites as good resources on dialogue and participatory techniques:

• www.thataway.org (the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation)
• www.studycircles.org (Study Circles Resource Center)
• www.nifi.org (National Issues Forums)
• www.americaspeaks.org (America Speaks)
• www.publicagenda.org (Public Agenda)

Also see my previous post The Power of Ten about another excellent Conference session