Recent thinking on participatory engagement
I recently wrote a white paper for a First Nations organization on participatory community engagement. The paper outlines several models, principles and processes that I am mcurrently working with as I help groups design and implement longer term community engagement processes.
Here is the most recent version of the paper for your reading, in .pdf format. The paper talks about mental models and comes from a perspective of decolonization. I’d love to have your thoughts in the comments so I can refine it further.
Brilliant! Clear and easy to follow! Ties an incredibly complex subject together in a very short space. Thank you! One question that I am left wondering about is to do with power, emotions and other interpersonal dynamics that arise in the process of working with others in complex social settings where people have differing mental models. How does one deal with these? How do they affect the process? Does the process address these? Thanks again!
Andre…thanks for that whole line. I should build that in in a subsequent draft. Any wisdom to add from your own practice?
Oh dear – I was hoping to hear from you about this! I asked the question because it’s very much something that I have been engaging with for some time now – and most certainly not something that I have come to a very clear conclusion about. I have a sense that the process that you describes will help to engage with and potentially transform power relations – for example by forming a community for change (power with) and by questioning mental models (power within). But I also get the sense that there is an assumption here of being relatively independent to pursue the process as one desires, with limited organisational pressure from above and limited political/social pressure from without.
Perhaps the way that power relations start to be reconfigured begins from the very set of principles that the core group embodies, radiating out a new way of relating to each other. Subsequently, all the meetings, interactions, facilitated sessions (workshops, theatre, etc.) that are used would also be modeled on more equal power relations, further spreading the new practices. I think such events can give people at once the direct experience of acting outside the boundaries of established power relations while at the same time perhaps even providing them opportunities to analyse these power relations. I wonder to what extent you feel that AoH and its family of practices already takes these power dynamics on board and to what extent something extra has to be done to address them?
In my personal practice I have found that my different positions in different programs within an organisation can radically affect my ability to act as a facilitator of change. Interpersonal dynamics abound, and they have to be continuously negotiated in the day-to-day process of working with others. In a context where power relations are unequal, I have found that people often say different things to different people depending on the nature of their relationship with those people. Thus some self-censorship – often on the most poignant issues – occurs and plays out into maintaining a kind of organisational/institutional status quo. My experience has been that engaging with such issues is not always a gentle process of inviting people to be a part of the change but can also involve argumentation and taking firm stands in messy organisational contexts to uphold a newly emerging set of practices that try to dig deeper into the underlying patterns of inter-being and our relationships with each other. How does one balance these two approaches? How does one be hard while also being soft? Is it just a matter of going where the energy already is and then following this until eventually the dynamics get transformed? Does it require a more explicit focus? Do you think that participatory engagement as a practice already contains the mechanisms that can address this? Sorry if all these thoughts are not so coherent, but I would really love to know about your experiences of working with these kinds of issues, especially in the context of the practice of participatory engagement that you have outlined in your paper.
Thank you again for this wonderful offering!
Andre…fantastic insights. There are a small group of us in the Art of Hosting community who are looking at issues of power and equity, questions which extend into this kind of process design. I’m doing some work soon with the Canadian Labour Congress where we have been carrying on some of these conversations over the past year and there are many insights to harvest from this work.
Hi Chris and Andre,
Thanks for engaging these nuts and bolts considerations. I love it. I am finding that not addressing these issues directly leaves a circle wide open for power struggles and unspoken purposes to side-track efforts in directions far away from what might have been hoped for, and, does anyone really have time for this?
One approach I often use is to enter a clear but brief meta-conversation about the kind of conversation we want to have together. This may be needed in the middle of a process spontaneously as Gremlins rear their heads and struggle to manipulate for power, but preferably I have the meta-conversation at the outset during the context setting.
It is not so much “meeting agreements” as it is a gateway to unleashing what is truly possible using group intelligence.
Sometimes before we start the conversation at all we ask people to choose between the “Blue Pill” (nothing really changes so we may as well all go home and watch TV) and the “Red Pill” (where commitment to the outcome invalidates personal discomforts as reasons to disrupt, where emotional liquid states characteristic of authentic change are almost guaranteed). This can be incredibly helpful and quickly builds a close knit team.
Meta-conversation qualifies the shared purpose. I use the distinctions on the “Map of Possibility” (defined at this link: http://www.nextculture.org/M.153.0.html, and shown in my book Directing the Power of Conscious Feelings – available on Amazon). The Map of Possibility clearly distinguishes between responsible and irresponsible games, conscious or unconscious purposes, high or low dramas, and bright or shadow principles.
During a dialog each comment, inflection, or gesture is easy to locate on this map, and having the map hanging on the wall in the meeting space with the shared purpose of creating high drama together makes meetings sing in extraordinary dimensions with equivalent results. I encourage you to try this. See what happens.
Thanks for sharing about your edge experiments. I think they are important and useful.
K L E C K O, for generously sharing, your wisdom, expertise and insights. This is such a timely article and discussion. It reminds me to stay grounded in practice, and the journey continues.
Thanks Chris, Andre and Clinton … an enlightening conversation.
One related talk that links nicely to the examination of mental models is the RSA presentation by Matthew Taylor -http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/videos/
He talks about the need to act and think differently by building our ’empathic capacity’ (at the individual to global scale) – this may then make it easier for Government to be bolder in policy and start taking a longer term view.
On the question of power … I struggle here as well and look forward to the next instalment.
Now straying offtrack somewhat (as I lie in bed after knee surgery) …
When in the recovery ward this morning I was reminded of my days in the hospital system as an Occupational Therapist. Understanding power games was critical in our day to day work. Multidisciplinary team of doctors (at the top) and allied professionals (somewhere near the bottom) worked together with a shared purpose – health outcomes for patients.
Worldviews differed widely in these teams and often got in the way of good decisions. Power was evident everywhere in ward rounds and team meetings and it was rare to find doctors who were willing to have their own worldview questioned. Listening skills were in short supply.
As OT’s we were taught early on to examine the mental models of our patients. The core of our practice was to consider the ‘whole person’ and continually review our approach to their rehabilitation. Our tool was to engage patients in ‘purposeful activity’ to facilitate their recovery and independence.
I felt that the OT was the silent leader within Multidisciplinary health teams. At meetings we were able to offer ‘functional’ and practical evidence about the readiness of patients to return home. Our picture of the patient included the physical, psycho-social and vocational dimensions and we were able to express the views of other professions in functional terms.
When the physio talked about muscle strength, we could express this in functional terms (like how it impacted on their ability to get dressed or drive a car). And when the big question was asked “Is this person ready and safe for discharge and go home?” … all would turn to the OT, for only she (and most are women) could see the whole picture.
Maybe our practice is like that of an OT?
In other words, they go against the grain of the careers their
parents had. You must definitely be planning to make it
special and memorable by keeping a good theme, ordering the best food and choosing the best games.
28.