I've been playing with that idea ever since. I've told about a dozen people about it and gathered feedback. Based on that, I've been working up an elevator pitch to work towards an eventual real project. (Okay, an elevator in a really tall building.) I've been passing this pitch document around in email, but the other day I thought: the blog is hungry, so why not feed it this thing? So here it is. See what you think.
These are some things I’ve noticed over the past several years, as a person who has been developing and promoting a dialogue-based method (participatory narrative inquiry).
People who are interested in dialogue can turn to a large number of useful methods, in the dozens (or hundreds, depending on how you divide them up).
Several excellent lists and frameworks have been built to help people make sense of all these methods. These include the NCDD’s Engagement Streams Framework, participedia.net, The Change Handbook, Liberating Structures, the Group Works Deck, Tom Atlee's Multi-Process Public Participation Programs, and others. People use these lists and value them.
The number of dialogue methods keeps growing.
I have noticed from conversations with people that:
- People seem to “shop” for dialogue methods, choose a small number, pay attention to them, and ignore all others.
- People sometimes act tribally about the methods they have chosen, promoting them as best, acting as if people who also use those methods are on their “team.”
- When I tell people about the method I work on/with (participatory narrative inquiry, or PNI), I find that there is a U-shaped reaction based on how much experience people have in dialogic practice.
- People who are unaware of dialogue want to hear about PNI (and PNI only).
- People who have some (but not that much) experience with dialogue don’t want to hear about yet another method, say they’ve already heard of Appreciative Inquiry (or some other story-based method), and get too busy to talk to me.
- People with lots of experience want to know how PNI relates to other methods. They want to learn about it so they can consider incorporating some of its ideas into their practice.
- When people ask me about PNI, they are often surprised when I point them to literature in overlapping fields like participatory theatre and narrative therapy. They find it unique and novel.
The sociologist Harrison White posits three “species” of interaction among people: selection (choosing among options), mobilization (gaining influence), and commitment (getting things done). When I look at how people use dialogue methods, I see a lot of selection (shopping) and mobilization (tribalism) going on, but very little commitment (making things happen).
I think the world of dialogue needs more commitment interaction.
My concern is that we may be reaching a point where the very instruments we use to bridge differences have developed differences that need to be bridged.
Many dialogue methods are more complementary and synergistic than people (especially newcomers to dialogue) realize.
The most experienced practitioners of dialogue don’t shop for methods, and they don’t promote methods. They grow their own solutions, unique to each need, based on what they learn from all over. Harrison White would say that they work entirely at the commitment level.
In my experience, dialogue is more effective when people know why they are using what they are using, learn from many sources, and can craft unique solutions for unique needs. I would like to see more people doing this.
It should be possible to help more people get to the point of understanding how to grow their own solutions.
I’m surprised how hard it is to find out how different methods are related. The people who developed the methods usually know about relationships among methods, but there is little for the practitioner to find on the subject.
Maybe better information on how dialogue methods are and can be related would help people move beyond the current state of affairs. Maybe it would help people make more informed choices, do less “campaigning” for their favorite methods, listen to people who use different methods more carefully, and create better solutions for their needs.
Based on all of this, I’ve been pondering this question: how can we, as developers of dialogue methods, help people use the synergies they need to make our methods work for them?
I think it’s time to take the next step beyond lists to a networked model that helps people find “yes and” synergies among relevant methods.
Here’s how I think we could do that. (I don’t know who “we” are at this point. It could be anybody.)
Christopher Alexander is rightly revered for his idea of a pattern language, a structured way to talk about patterns in – anything.
"... the elements of this language are entities called patterns. Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice."You could say that dialogue methods are like patterns, because they present solutions for common problems. In fact, the Group Works Deck treats them exactly as such. [Edit: This isn't exactly correct. Tree Bressen, one of the originators of the Group Works Deck, says that it represents "underlying patterns and similarities" that make up dialogue methods (not the methods themselves).]
I think we could take the idea of a pattern language and apply it to relationships between methods. I’ve been calling this idea a connection language.
By creating a web of pairwise connection patterns, we could build a learning network people could “walk around on” to better understand how dialogue methods are related and to find the best combinations of solutions for their needs. Because a connection language would create explicit relationships between methods, people would be able to move beyond shopping and tribalism. They would be able to move into a more effective, committed use of the available methods for their unique needs.
The basic idea of the connection language is simple. In Alexander’s terms, a connection language ought to ask, “What problems can these methods address, and what solutions can they provide, together?” The answer to that question is a connection pattern. Through a dialogic process, two or more people who represent paired methods work together to describe how the two methods are similar, different, and complementary, and how the methods can be (and have been) used together. A collection of these connection patterns creates a connection language.
Alexander and his co-authors called their book A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. As I see it, dialogue is the town we are building together; our methods are the buildings; and collaboration is how we are building them (and how we are connecting them). (I had "approaches" in the place of "methods," but methods seem more like buildings. "Approach" is too nebulous a word. But it could be the right word anyway.)
The process of connection pattern creation, to be carried out by two people or groups who volunteer to represent each method, might have a structure something like this.
- Reflect. The two people/groups send each other a few brief but essential documents to review. Each person reads and highlights words, phrases, and sentences that stand out as resonating (yes we do that too), contrasting (that’s different), or just interesting (you do that?).
- Share. The two people/groups have a physical or online meeting to talk about the words and phrases they highlighted in each other's documents. They use these markings as a means to explore how the two methods are similar, different, complementary, and synergistic.
- Build. As the people emerge from their discussion, they create a first draft of a connection pattern (see below for its structure).
- Refine. As they improve the pattern, the people open it up to others, to add more detail and to test its utility.
A connection pattern might have a structure something like this.
- Introduction. The pattern starts with a brief introduction to each method that explains its purpose (why it exists), its origin and context of development (where it came from), its core concepts (the ideas it relies on), its practical uses (what it's good for), and its limitations (what it's not meant to do). Note that this part of the pattern only has to be written once for each method. However, the parallel structure keeps methods from veering off into their own ways of describing themselves, and it helps people compare methods on equal terms.
- Table. Next there is a table that links the two methods together. This is the crux of the pattern. The columns have the titles "Similar" and "Contrasting". The rows cover goals, history, concepts, and techniques. In the cells are brief summaries of ways in which the two methods are similar and different/complementary in each area. (See the example table below.)
- Dictionary. The major terms unique to each method are defined in language that makes sense to people who know only about the other method.
- Diagram. An optional diagram shows how the two methods are related visually. The exact form of this diagram emerges out of the discussion between the two people/groups representing the methods.
- Case studies. These are real or imagined stories about the two methods being used together. Ideas are suggested and experiments are described where the methods are used in various ways (e.g., sequentially, with ideas from one influencing the other, with phases interleaved together, etc).
I envision the connection language being built on a web site, with a semantic wiki (a wiki with forms) providing structure. I would also like to see opportunities for practitioners to have conversations and ask questions about using dialogue methods together.
The obvious difficulty in building such a site is that if there are 100 methods there would be 5000 pairs of methods. My feeling is that the people who choose to represent a method (its developers, people who use it a lot, people who champion it) would take on the responsibility of choosing some number of connections they think are the most useful. Some combinations would “cry out” to be examined more than others, and I expect that eventually a critical mass would emerge.
Along with lists of links on each page, I envision a visual navigation system that looks something like visuwords.com, where clicking on the lines between methods leads to viewing the relevant connection patterns. We might even be able to annotate the visual diagram with summaries like “whole system in the room” (similarity) or “big versus small groups” (difference) or “gather stories first, then brainstorm lists” (complementarities).
My original idea for making the connection language happen was to gather a task force of people who think this is a good idea, and get each of them to contribute a small amount of time and money to get the site going. (It would cost a little to host the site.) However, I’ve been thinking lately that the idea might be better supported by some collective entity that is already helping people with dialogue. The project would reach more people that way, and it might gather more contributors than I can gather on my own.
If anybody has ideas about how such a project could come to pass, please let me know. I don’t have any need to “own” the idea, and even though I’d like to get some credit, I’m happy to share the idea and project with anybody who thinks it’s worth pursuing.
To test some of the ideas I describe above, I worked with Stephen Sillett of Aiding Dramatic Change in Development to create a first-draft table for a connection pattern between Participatory Narrative Inquiry and Socio-Drama Topography. SDT is a large-group facilitation process that draws on participatory theatre, sensemaking, and narrative to create "deep, open, and strategically relevant conversations." SDT is "designed to reduce barriers to participation faced by marginalized communities, including those relating to varying levels of literacy."
I include this table (with permission) as an illustration of the kind of resource that might come out of the connection language process.
Interaction among levels. Both methods create interactions between micro, meso, and macro levels.
Bottom-up. Both methods attempt to drop down below the meso layer and include participants at the micro level.
Pre-decision. Both methods focus on exploration, listening, and sharing in advance of decision making, not on decision making itself.
Reality vs imagination. SDT, on a spectrum from representations of reality to aesthetic resonance (imagination), lies more in aesthetic/performative and less in reality. PNI starts in reality and moves partly into imagination (but not that far).
Scope. SDT focuses on building strategic capacity. SDT is a large group process that makes sense in relation to a defined theme/context in which it is strategically deployed. The journey within the workshop has been designed upfront to get the most out of the 3 days (people are being asked to make a big commitment of time). In contrast, PNI is not focused on capacity; it is focused on helping people make better decisions (large or small). Though PNI projects can be large and can build capacity, PNI more typically “scales down” to fit into the available opportunities for story work, which range in time and mode of interaction.
Depth. If completely extractive work (e.g., survey-based research) is on one end of a spectrum (call it 1) and fully immersive experiences are at the other end (call it 10), SDT has its center at about 7, and PNI has its center at about 5. PNI attempts to create a bridge between shallow and deep exploration by ranging across the spectrum within one project (from shallow, wide story collection to deep, local sensemaking). SDT bridges a similar gap by gradually drawing (the same) people closer to a deeper experience.
Participation. Both SDT and PNI have sought since their beginnings to enable participants to be the drivers of sensemaking and meaning making.
Context of development. PNI arose in corporations centered on decision making. This is one reason it works with minimal participation, grudging permission to include everyone, and short time frames. SDT arose in opening up youth to participate in forum theatre in communities. This is one reason it builds on creativity and passion in its participants.
Parent fields. SDT is arts-based; PNI is research-based.
Ground truth. Both methods focus on depth of insight, ground truth, and personal experiences.
Play. Both methods use the power of play, “the partial suspension of the rules of the real,” to help people create positive change.
Adaptation. Both SDT and PNI are processes whose design is adapted to particular themes and contexts.
Performance. SDT has a strong performative component. PNI can include performative elements, and has some weaker manifestations of performance (e.g., during sensemaking), but performance is not the core of PNI.
Geography. Having a common geographical area is central to SDT. It is not important to PNI.
Dialogue. Both processes are dialogical; but SDT is intentionally dialogical (using aspects of Bohm dialogue), while PNI relies on the innately dialogical social structures of story sharing.
Cycles. In SDT, much attention is paid to cycles during which the project is tested and matures. In PNI there is less attention to longer-term cycles. PNI projects do sometimes feed in to later projects, but there is less of a long-term expectation of continuity.
Participation. PNI runs on "micro-participation," emphasizing breadth over depth (at least at first, during story collection). SDT runs on "macro-participation," emphasizing depth over breadth. PNI “makes do” with whatever participation/permission it can gather; SDT gathers the participation/permission it needs.
Locality. SDT is "hyperlocal." PNI can be hyperlocal, but it can also be broad and shallow.
Landscapes. Both SDT and PNI include the group creation of a physical map or landscape. (But see the “Landscapes” difference.)
Numbers of people. SDT works in large groups of 20 or more, attempting to get “the whole system in the room.” PNI works with varied levels of participation and group sizes; typically many people tell stories (possibly hundreds), but fewer work with stories in groups (anywhere from several to 50). In PNI the stories represent the people who are not present (sometimes because they are not willing or able to be present, sometimes because others don’t want them to be present).
Non-verbal communication. SDT has strong elements of non-verbal communication. PNI does include a little non-verbal communication during sensemaking (the creation of physical artifacts), but this is not a core of the practice.
Landscapes. In SDT, creating a landscape is at the core of the method. In PNI, creating a landscape is one of several possible sensemaking exercises. In SDT the landscape is gegraphical and conceptual combined. In PNI the landscape is not usually geographical.
Space. SDT, because it makes use of physical space in its processes, places great emphasis on the physical space in which engagement occurs. PNI needs space for its activities, but has lesser requirements for the quality of the space (because it is not used in the same way).
Training. SDT, because it is a large-group process that typically takes on large, long-term projects, has greater training needs than PNI. To address these needs, SDT seeks to train up local staff for greater sustainability. PNI tends to start with small projects and grow in ambition over time as practitioners become more skilled. On large, ambitious PNI projects, helpers may be trained, but this is not common.
The connection language idea is still in its infancy. I’m eager to connect with people who want to make it happen. I’m open to many ideas about how it should develop and where it should end up. I think it’s an idea the world needs. What do you think?
Cynthia, this is a wonderful post on so many levels. I am grateful that you have mentioned a variety of methods for making sense, and coordinating action among people. It is good to see Liberating Structures, with which I have been working the past year, mentioned in your post. I am likewise happy to see your thinking here about "connection" and "pattern" language. Having been learning about, and woring with a variety of collaborative; narrative; and sense-making frameworks in recent years, I definitely see the common dynamics. With regard to convening people to think and share about this together, why not propose a workshop slot on this for the NCDD Conference coming up in Boston. I am planning to attend, and I'd certainly love to participate in such a dialogue.
All the best, talk soon, Bruce
Thanks Bruce! Comments make the world go round. I also plan to attend the NCDD 2016, and I'd love to propose this for a workshop slot. Maybe we could present it together - anybody else want to?
Fascinating idea, Cynthia. It would be complex and ambitious to pull off. I suspect a streamlined, simpler version could have almost as much value and be a lot easier to make. Create a table based on the Introduction categories you outlined (purpose, origin, core concepts, practical uses, and limitations), and include one more category for "relationships with other methods" where the most important or useful pairings would be highlighted. Based on that last category, create a visual "web" diagram of the network among methods. What do you think?
Mind you, i'm not convinced such a resource, while wonderful, would have the effect you desire. I expect it would be too arcane for newcomers to find it accessible. I strongly agree with your statement (just slightly reworded here): "The most experienced practitioners of dialogue don’t shop for methods, and they don’t promote methods. Based on what they learn from all over, they grow their own solutions, unique to each need." The question is how to get there. I teach facilitation workshops that reflect my experience as an eclectic practitioner, stealing freely from methods and blending in response to each unique need--thus hopefully transmitting this approach to my students. Among methods i've seen, i suppose Art of Hosting comes closest to this mode of operation, because it is more a sensibility and a mix of several methods than an orthodox method in itself.
Thanks for the shout-out to Group Works. I wouldn't say the pattern language deck we created treats dialogue methods as the patterns, rather we went traipsing through the large and lovely field of methods seeking underlying patterns and similarities. The question we set out to answer was, "What are the pieces happening over and over in common among many successful dialogue methods?"
I am cross-posting an excerpt from your post to the Group Works deck discussion list, inviting folks to get in touch with you if they want to explore further.
Tree, thanks for the comment and the cross-posting! I'm glad to talk about ways to approach this need.
First: you're right that the Group Works Deck doesn't treat methods as patterns. It does indeed seek (and find) underlying patterns and similarities among methods. I said that (in error) because I previously had been using the word "approaches," which could be seen as referring both to named things and to underlying ideas. When I switched to the term "methods" it didn't fit what Group Works does as well. Sorry for not fixing that.
I agree that a "streamlined, simpler version" of a connection language would be better. The question is how to streamlined and simplify it without losing essential elements. For example, the version you described, with "relationships with other methods" relegated to one (lesser) part of a larger table, would, I think, repeat what has already been done. What I think is missing in what has been done is to bring those (usually parenthetical) relationships to center stage. You could say that I want to create a comic book full of nothing but "if Superman met Spiderman" contests. That's what I think people need and aren't getting. There's plenty of descriptions of methods, and of ideas within methods, but there's not a lot for people who want/need to compare.
I also agree that such a resource might be too arcane for the newcomer, in general. However, I also think that a lot of people (both newcomers and people with intermediate experience) are looking for answers to questions like:
- "I can't decide whether Approach X or Approach Y is best for my project. Which is better suited?"
- "I love Approach X, but my colleague insists on using Approach Y. What can we do? Can we even work together?"
- "I like some aspects of Approach X, but I really like this particular part of Approach Y. Is there some way I can combine them without making a mess of things?"
- "I can't get my colleagues to try Approach X, but they are comfortable with Approach Y. Is there some way I can get them to try a little bit of Approach X while mostly doing Approach Y, to show them that Approach X is a viable option?"
I would like to help people answer those questions. Your approach in teaching facilitation workshops seems to help people do that. Maybe if a connection language was ever built, your experiences in that area could help it succeed. I would like to do the same thing as what you are doing, only reaching out more widely to help more people. :)
Thanks again for the discussion! Happy to follow up in email if you are interested (or if anybody else is).
Triggered by Tree's list, I have cross-posted at http://model.report and I'd encourage everyone to join there (https://model.report/invitations/request) where you'll find a rich resource of connections across the entire world of 'systems thinking' and a rich community of people who would dearly love to do something comparable...
Post on this post:
Collection of collective facilitation methods:
Thanks Benjamin. The more people talk about all of these ideas the more good things will happen :)
Post a Comment