Home Interest Areas Deliberations Current Work Past Work Papers Contact Links Forum About SCPI

Deliberation and Sustained Dialogue

Our work on deliberation and sustained dialogue includes areas such as:

A printable copy of SCPI's latest report "Becoming Deliberative" is available in PDF format (36 pages long).

top

Experiences of, and lessons learned from, the use of deliberation and sustained dialogue in New Zealand &mdash An Introduction

David Robinson, March 2010

The paper provides a personal reflection on SCPI's experiences in developing the use of deliberation and sustained dialogue in New Zealand over the last ten years.

Those who attended Deliberative Democracy Workshops and other Kettering activities in Dayton work in other agencies and have taken what they learned back into those agencies. Although sponsored by SCPI most have no formal association with the organisation. Some have ongoing contact with each other through the Porirua Thursday group and a regular meal and discussion is attended by eight or nine members to reflect on their work and exchange experiences and issues.

A key function of SCPI is our facilitation and mentoring in encouraging other agencies to use a deliberation or dialogue approach. Examples are the Bioethics Council, Mental Health Foundation and ECREA (Fiji) projects. We have encouraged and provided support to a range of agencies to use deliberation and sustained dialogue as well as being directly involved with some projects. This includes working with Government agencies, City Councils and community agencies to improve their practices.

Three previous papers have been written by SCPI associates for the Kettering Foundation; Becoming Deliberative, 2003, Pacific Ways of Talk, 2004 and Challenges when Practising Public Deliberation (John Cody), 2007.

Experiences of, and lessons learned from, the use of deliberation and sustained dialogue in New Zealand

David Robinson, New Zealand Social and Civic Policy Institute
www.SCPI.org.nz

22 March 2010

Introduction

Our connections with the Kettering Foundation and the International Institute for Sustained Dialogue began in 1996 when David Robinson, Director of the Social and Civic Policy Institute (SCPI), was invited to the International Civil Society Consortium forum in Salzburg1. This was followed with his participation in subsequent research forums in Puerto Rico in 1998 and Fort Lauderdale in 1999. Hal Saunders visited New Zealand in 1999 and 2003 and a deliberation training workshop was held in Wellington in 2000 with two facilitators from the Kettering Foundation. Our first associate attended a Deliberative Democracy Workshop in 1997 and since then SCPI has sponsored 20 people to subsequent workshops. Five associates have continued their relationship with the Kettering Foundation through civil society and public journalism fellowships while five others have participated in research and ICSC meetings. Agencies DDW attendees were employed by or associated with include the Human Rights Commission, Auckland City Council (Councillor), Porirua City Council (Councillor), Royal NZ College of GPs, Maori Congress, Whakatohea iwi2, Ngai tahu iwi, Healthlinks, Project Tiger (Porirua youth programme), Changemakers Refugee Forum, Family and Community Services and the Mental Health Foundation.

Through their connections with SCPI members of this group (along with other SCPI associates who have participated in workshops in New Zealand) have had ongoing contact with each other. Although most have not run a series of sustained dialogues or deliberations as set out in the frameworks, the concepts have been carried over into the design of research questions, policy papers, action plans and their general way of working.

Those who became involved at various levels with Kettering events/networks/material came with their own understandings of community, of working with disparate groups of people to achieve outcomes at community level. They recognised kindred souls and concepts and were happy to learn from Kettering. The Kettering contribution was seen in a collegial way - with each recognising the other as having valid and different experience and expertise. The Porirua experience was not seen by those involved as having adopted the deliberation and sustained dialogue processes completely but of incorporating aspects of what was brought into their own processes. Transferable concepts and techniques were looked for. A member of the Bioethics Council said that the SCPI/Kettering input was useful in getting the Council to consider the use of a form of deliberation or dialogue - to have a model developed by someone with street credibility rather than simply to propose her own ideas/models from past experience.

The New Zealand context

All of those who were interviewed about their experiences confirmed the value of their exposure to deliberation and sustained dialogue and said this had influenced their own work. Sustained dialogue has been an influence rather than a model to be followed or implemented. We are interested in clarifying the value of deliberative dialogue in all its forms in a developed society where there is already an ebb and flow of engagement and disengagement.

In considering what we have learned it is important to clarify who "we" are. All of the twenty people from New Zealand who have participated in DDW and other Kettering Foundation activities were sponsored by SCPI (primarily a research and facilitating organisation). Those who attended DDW work in other agencies and have taken what they learned back into those agencies. We refer to this group, and others who have been involved in workshops within New Zealand and who are engaged with our work as SCPI associates. They are not employed by SCPI and most have no formal association with the organisation. Some members of the group have ongoing contact with each other through the Porirua Thursday group3 and a regular (approximately two-monthly) meal and discussion is attended by around eight or nine members which gives the opportunity to reflect on their work and exchange experiences and issues. We called this the "deliberative dialogue" group as participants have incorporated aspects of these two approaches into their own work.

A key function of SCPI is our facilitation and mentoring in encouraging other agencies to use a deliberation or dialogue approach. Examples are the Bioethics Council, Mental Health Foundation and ECREA (Fiji) projects. We have encouraged and provided support to a range of agencies to use deliberation and sustained dialogue as well as being directly involved with some projects. This includes working with Government agencies, City Councils and community agencies to improve their practices.

Three previous papers have been written by SCPI associates for the Kettering Foundation; Becoming Deliberative, 2003, Pacific Ways of Talk, 2004 and Challenges when Practising Public Deliberation (John Cody), 2007. A brief chronology, setting out the history of our engagement with the Kettering Foundation is included in appendix 1 and references to relevant reports and papers in appendix 6.

What has SCPI done?

We have:

What has been achieved

Examples of outcomes from these activities, details of which are included in this report, include:

What has been problematic

Sustained dialogue moderator training sessions have been run in Wellington and Auckland with no evidence that the full process has been put directly into practice. Where a formal deliberation or dialogue process has been used this has involved work with an agency that has implemented it as part of its research or communication work. With the exception of our early deliberation on the growing and use of marijuana in Opotiki we have not been successful in encouraging a community to use a formal process to address an issue of concern. In the Opotiki situation a SCPI associate (Tu Williams) who was a respected community leader in the area opened doors to both community and Government agencies as well as the local Council. SCPI also provided facilitation and other support.

Engagement with central government was initially slow to generate interest. This relates to attempts by SCPI to directly engage in running deliberative activities such as the proposal to the State Services Commission for a dialogue on Treaty of Waitangi issues4. Inviting Government officials to discussions and workshops and encouraging them to engage directly with the issues of improving consultation, communication and community participation has been more successful. The Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector has initiated a programme to improve consultation and communication between Government and the community sector5.

Our engagement with senior political figures in a proposal to initiate a high-level dialogue over race relations was unsuccessful. This is one major area in New Zealand that can be viewed in terms of potential "crisis", more specifically, issues around "one law for all" versus the recognition of the special status of Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. This issue was raised in workshops and meetings during Hal Saunders' visit in 2003. It had been placed on the national political agenda by the then Leader of the National Party, the major opposition political party, in a speech attacking special treatment for Maori in the provision of health, education and social services or any specific mention of the Treaty in departmental policies. This speech raised public concern over the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process and opened up previously hidden issues of race relations. Although SCPI initiated a number of discussions with politicians and others about using sustained dialogue to explore the underlying issues the eventual response emphasised the primacy of the formal political system. A Maori Minister in the Labour Government resigned from the Labour Party and was re-elected to Parliament as leader of the new Maori Party in 2004. At present the Maori Party has five members of Parliament and has a confidence and supply arrangement with the National-led government with the two Maori Party co-leaders being Ministers outside Cabinet. This process has resulted in avoiding public dialogue with the emphasis on "identity" political parties emphasising differences rather than seeking common ground. The dialogue that has taken place has been in the form of discussions between political parties including coalition agreements with little input from party members or the general public.

A continuing challenge (which was earlier highlighted in the Porirua project) is addressing the power and influence of policy advisers and other experts. Giving ordinary citizens and community associations the confidence to speak for themselves and present their own views in official forums has been a key achievement of the Porirua group. This community self-confidence is not always appreciated or accepted by policy advisers and is currently being addressed in current Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector project.

What have we learned?

A key outcome of our engagement with deliberation and sustained dialogue has been identifying the value of incorporating concepts into people's own work rather than directly implementing existing models. The following points raised in interviews with SCPI associates about their experiences with deliberation and sustained dialogue both reflect ways in which they have amended their own ways of work and identify areas requiring further exploration.

How are deliberation and sustained dialogue being used?

What has been the impact of our engagement with deliberation and sustained dialogue?

The deliberation and sustained dialogue concepts and approaches have been adapted by a number of individuals and agencies as a model for a way of engaging with both the community and with government agencies.

Three main types of situations which can benefit from structured discussion are:

  1. A crisis, often with an ethnic, racial or religious background, in which people do not trust each other and find it difficult to enter into open discussion.
  2. A difficult public decision where there may be a range of sets of information and options.
  3. Situations marked by different ways in which an issue may be understood, often due to differing norms and values.

Sustained dialogue has been suggested as being most useful in the first type of situation, where a crisis is present and the lack of trust restricts engagement among those affected while deliberation is seen as being appropriate for the second type where a difficult public decision needs to be made.

Those involved with our work on deliberation and sustained dialogue in New Zealand are also involved in the third type - examples being in the mental health area and work with former refugees. In these cases the pre-dialogue phase is critical where considerable time and effort is required to ensure that there is a common understanding of the issues and that the different players are ready to engage. Reluctance to engage is not due to a visible crisis or lack of trust but more to differing ways of seeing the world and understanding a situation. We refer to this as differing norms and values, often based on cultural differences but which may also reflect different positions of status and power.

Purpose for using a deliberative approach

Different agencies and individuals have explored using a deliberative dialogue approach for a variety of reasons.

In practice the use of deliberation and sustained dialogue approaches in New Zealand fits into three forms:

  1. Implementation of deliberation and sustained dialogue.
  2. Development of amended forms of deliberation and sustained dialogue.
  3. Integration of a combination of deliberation and sustained dialogue concepts into the ongoing working procedures of individuals and agencies.

Examples of the first category include deliberation on the "growing and use of marijuana" in Opotiki in 2001and the 2008/2009 Mental Health Foundation deliberation project looking at discrimination among mental health consumers and their families.

A sustained dialogue process is being used in a number of areas by the Ecumenical Research Education and Advocacy (ECREA) Faith & Society Programme in Fiji which "brings together leaders and community members from different churches for sustained dialogue and joint action on social issues". This was initiated in a four-day training workshop on sustained dialogue and social justice in 2005. The invitation to run this workshop was a result of the participation of an ECREA staff member in Hal Saunders' training workshop in Wellington in 2003.

Examples of amended forms of deliberation and sustained dialogue include the use by the Bioethics Council of what they call "deliberative dialogue" in their consultation over the proposed use of xenotransplantation in 2005 and pre-birth testing in 2007 - 2008. In general this follows the deliberation process format. Two separate full day "dialogue forums" were held with each group consulted providing an opportunity for participants to discuss issues raised after the first session with family and friends before re-convening. The first session combined the provision of information on the issues with an opportunity for participants to talk about their own views. The second session moved into discussion on what approach the New Zealand Government should take towards legislation. Two dialogue sessions on Xenotransplation were also run by SCPI with Maori participants in Whakatane.

The Bioethics Council's initial interest in deliberation and dialogue was stimulated by the participation of a Council member in Hal Saunders' first workshop in Wellington prior to the establishment of the Bioethics Council in 2002. The Council's website provides links to the National Issues Forum, America Speaks, Public Agenda and Kettering Foundation in reference to its deliberation work.

Following input from SCPI a variation of sustained dialogue has been developed by consultants Parker Duignan who "have developed a particular methodology for such processes called the Rich Dialogue Process." This process was used to explore "how society manages the risks and opportunities of science and technology" funded by the Foundation for Research in Science and Technology. A dialogue group of 15 diverse members of the community met at a local school with a trained facilitator. A brief paper was produced from the discussion setting out their fears, hopes and questions. This paper was then circulated to Government agencies with a responsibility in this area to gain input for a second dialogue session held three weeks later.

However, the greatest impact has not been through structured deliberation or sustained dialogue but in the impact on individuals and agencies involved in training workshops and the ongoing deliberative dialogue support group. Many members of this group have also participated in DDW workshops and Kettering research forums in Dayton.

The value of exposure to deliberation and sustained dialogue has been expressed in the work of the Royal New Zealand College of GPs, Porirua Healthlinks, Porirua City Council "village" planning, Bay of Plenty Iwi Fisheries Forum, Changemakers Refugee Forum and St Andrews Church.

During the last ten years the emphasis in practice has been more on deliberation which reflects the fact that since Sue Driver's attendance at the DDW in 1997, SCPI has sponsored 20 people to subsequent workshops. Four continued their contact with the Kettering Foundation through civil society fellowships and one on a public journalism fellowship. Six have participated in research and ICSC meetings and a deliberation training workshop was run in Wellington in 2000 by Betty Knighton and Ruth Yellowhawk from the Kettering Foundation. Most of those who participated in the various Kettering Foundation events, along with other SCPI associates, have also gained insights into sustained dialogue through the visits of Hal Saunders (1999 and 2003) and Teddy Nemeroff (2005).

The emphasis in the workshops on the value of sustained dialogue in a crisis situation along with the extended commitment of resources and time required appears to have limited its take-up in New Zealand.

Using deliberation and dialogue in research.

Several institutions have introduced their own forms of deliberation and sustained dialogue processes, mainly as a research tool. The major limitations in this approach relate to the availability of financial resources and the time needed to carry out a comprehensive and ongoing form of dialogue. This has meant that the depth of dialogue has been limited. However, two key agencies, the Bioethics Council and the Mental Health Foundation (MHF) both acknowledged the value of a deliberative dialogue approach as an ongoing feature of their work. Unfortunately the Bioethics Council was dis-established by the current Government in early 2009. The key staff members involved in developing the deliberative dialogue approach are now working with the Ministry for the Environment but have no current plans to make further use of this process.

Following the completion of the MHF project their Senior Researcher said "The Dialogue Forum was immensely powerful…..There is definitely value in continuing the dialogue in some way so hopefully the Like Minds Like Mine programme will pick this up when we make our recommendations. It would be great to see Dialogue Forums become a mainstream strategy." SCPI is continuing to support the MHF in exploring the further use of deliberation and dialogue.

This shows the importance of a practical learning process in building understanding of the potential value of dialogue and the need for ongoing support and mentoring to encourage the development of deliberative dialogue based research.

Engaging with Government agencies

Despite our initial concern over the slowness of Government agencies to engage positively with sustained dialogue (in relation to the high number of agencies involved in workshops e.g. Human Rights Commission, Department of Internal Affairs, Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector (OCVS), Ministry for the Environment etc) there has been increasing acceptance of the underlying concepts. These have become integrated into the ongoing work plan of OCVS in particular which includes Building Better Government Engagement (BBGE) and a review of the community and Government/community relationship agreement. A key factor in this positive engagement has been the continuous interaction between OCVS and the community sector (including SCPI) in developing these projects. OCVS has also investigated other participatory approaches but our workshops and other input have had a considerable influence on acceptance of the core principles of deliberative dialogue.

Overall there has been considerable development in the way in which Government engages with the community and with community organisations. The Government Policy Adviser managing the BBGE project attended our 2000 deliberation training course and three SCPI associates have been engaged directly with the BBGE process. SCPI is participating in ongoing work including the current review of the Statement of Government Intent which is a form of compact or MOU between Government and community organisations.

Building Better Engagement with Government.6

A national forum was held in Wellington, in mid-2007, bringing together community and voluntary organisations and government agencies to address the need for greater government-community engagement. Participants at the forum called for the public service to improve consultation processes and create a more respectful and collaborative culture of engagement, leading to the establishment of the Building Better Government Engagement reference group to provide advice on ways to enhance central government engagement with citizens and communities.

Made up of members from government and non-government backgrounds the reference group set out to explore how central government could better effectively engage with citizens and communities, recognising the interdependence of government and communities in achieving the best outcomes for society.

The group's consultation, via online discussion, written submissions and face-to-face forums, with members of the community and voluntary sector and government agencies, along with a report from the Association of Non-Governmental Organisations of Aotearoa (ANGOA), led to a cabinet paper being presented to Parliament outlining the need for stronger community-government relationships, and effective community engagement, which would in turn enhance community capacity to address issues, strengthen trust in government, improve government transparency, and create better informed and more sustainable policies.

One of the main recommendations in the cabinet paper was that a national forum be convened to discuss the development of a Relationship Agreement to replace the 2001 Statement of Government Intentions for an Improved Community-Government Relationship, which outlines the government's commitment to building strong and respectful relationships with the community and voluntary sector.

On 11 November 2009, the Prime Minister, Ministers, members from the community and voluntary sector and government agency staff met to discuss the way forward in improving government engagement across all sectors of the population. The project reference group including SCPI associates met in February 2010 to plan next steps.

Cultural impact

SCPI associates from a Maori, Pacific Island and refugee background (including nine who have attended DDW) have taken the concepts into their own work rather than engaging in formal or external dialogue. In some cases this has been used to reinforce, and give increased credibility to their customary ways of work.

Changemakers Refugee Forum has produced a policy statement Nothing About us Without us which addresses the importance of involving the group in any research or policy development affecting them. This paper has been presented at a national diversity forum and has been received positively by other community and Government agencies. However, in working with former refugees there has been a major challenge in bringing the various different cultural communities together to work cooperatively. This is an issue that has not yet been satisfactorily resolved.

Use of terms

Deliberative dialogue

Deliberative dialogue7 is a general term we have introduced to cover the processes which a number of SCPI associates are now utilising within their own agencies and work. That is, they have incorporated a combination of deliberation and sustained dialogue approaches into their ongoing working procedures and work programmes. This takes key features of sustained dialogue and implements them in an informal and flexible way. It is an approach, a form of behaviour, rather than a structured process.

Key features are:

  1. Involving people with a range of views in an interactive dialogue in order to better understand each other's experiences and views.
  2. Ongoing dialogue that re-visits issues in order to go beyond the surface responses to explore contradictions and differences between different actors.
  3. The intent to develop policies and/or actions is balanced by an equivalent focus on building understanding within those participating in the dialogue.
  4. There is increased recognition of the importance of relationships as a key feature underlying issues of concern, and that attention needs to be placed on understanding and improving these relationships.

'Deliberative' refers to being oriented towards an issue, exploring options to alleviate problems by applying various sets of values, seeking to provide an informed basis for participants to act in their other roles. Deliberation might produce an action plan, but the views in a deliberative forum may be too diverse to generate closely coordinated action. It may also produce an 'inaction plan' i.e. subsequent actions that avoid harming or prejudicing others.

'Dialogue' refers to ongoing conversation among people who get to know the various participants and the context in which they live (pressures, resources, etc), their primary shared interest is a set of relationships, initially those within the group but later others that impinge on issues of living in a community. The conversation is essentially directed towards forming or maintaining a community rather than solving a problem. However, the nature of the activities that SCPI associates are involved with and their close connections with these activities means that in practice there is often a direct link to interventions largely of a community development nature.

'Deliberative dialogue' covers the ongoing discussion in which the primary reason for meeting relates to a topic or set of problems, but where there is a willingness or expectation that as relational issues arise they will be addressed through dialogue.

This deliberative dialogue approach has been integrated into the working operations of a number of individuals and community based agencies.

The emphasis has been on developing an improved understanding of a situation and then working out collectively how to react to it.

Deliberative dialogue in ongoing community development - the Porirua experience

The group of SCPI associates in Porirua8 includes three people who have attended DDW and other Kettering workshops as well as several others who have taken part in training workshops in Wellington. Their activities include integrating the concepts into their own work, running specific deliberative projects including one with Pacific Islanders on "Is there a place for us at the economic development table?"9 and working collectively on associated issues.

In considering the suggestion that one of our projects might fit into the framework of; "citizens naming a problem, framing possible approaches to it, deliberating on those approaches, then continuing to design a course of action, involving a broader circle in implementing it, and then taking stock and producing mid-course corrections" it seems that this combination fits closely into this process.

That is, the initial forum about the future of Porirua hospital, the development of the Centre of Excellence in Health, the diabetes cluster and current discussions on health disparities. With, along the way, the development of associated projects such as Creekfest, the "Is there a place for us at the economic development table?" deliberation project and the initial discussions leading to the Porirua City Council's village planning approach. These are covered in the following section on the Porirua Health Cluster with an further report on the Porirua Experience from one of the key participants in appendix 3.

These events can be set out in a linear pathway illustrated with a line covering the first set of health issues with "break-out paths" (or "fishing lines" drawing ideas back into the ongoing discussions) providing links to the secondary list of activities.

hospital forum -+- Centre of Excellence -+- diabetes cluster -+- health disparities
                |                        |                    |
        economic development          Creekfest        village planning

All of these events have taken place within the context of the continuing Thursday breakfast sessions, in which the core group (together with a fluctuating number of other involved and interested people), have been meeting every week for a discussion over breakfast for the last six years.

The key elements in the process are:

  1. Building trust.
  2. Gaining knowledge of deliberation and sustained dialogue approaches.
  3. Dialogue to (a) assess the value of deliberation and sustained dialogue (b) identify/ clarify issues of concern
  4. Expanding the dialogue network.
  5. Continuing to meet and talk (the "top line") while initiating and interacting in a range of actions with the core group and others.

Much of this has already been reported in papers prepared for the Kettering Foundation Becoming deliberative - a case study of activities using a deliberative approach in Porirua City, 2003 and Challenges when Practising Public Deliberation, 2007 - as well as in other papers including Social Capital and Health: Community Health Activity in Porirua, John Cody, Institute of Policy Studies, 1999, Terms of Engagement in Porirua - a case study for civic action on health, Maureen Gillon, IPS, 2002 and Maureen's notes for the 2004 DDW, The Porirua Health Cluster - a deliberative process in action.

Porirua Health Cluster

The Porirua Health Cluster was established following a deliberative forum in February 2002 to identify how the local community, health providers, community organisations, funders, policy makers, and local government could work together to improve health outcomes for people who live in Porirua City. At this forum the City Council General Manager said the deliberative process provides an opportunity to:

Participants recognised that current models of service were not improving health outcomes and it was agreed that improvement must begin with a fundamental change in the way that services are designed and delivered. As one participant said:

"Users of services must be able to tell their stories and be involved at all stages of planning and design."

As a result, the City Council, Healthlinks, Ngatitoa (local iwi) and the District Health Board agreed to work together to support Porirua as a 'Centre of Excellence in Healthcare' by:

Developing a unique opportunity for coordinated training in innovative models of care, based on cultural leadership and integration between prevention, primary and community care, secondary and specialist services.

The Cluster provides an ongoing forum for discussion on health issues. It has no formal constitution other than agreement by the participants to work together to meet this goal. A crucial point is that it is not a service provider. Its role is to:

The cluster facilitates communication, collaboration and access to information, sparks innovation and fosters interaction between sectors such as health, housing, education, and business. The deliberative process used has helped develop the following emerging themes:

What has happened as a result?

The cluster agreed to develop a Community Centre of Excellence in Healthcare. It held a one-day deliberative workshop with users of services, families, community organisations, health providers, and others which identified diabetes as its initial focus. This is the most significant health issue in the City, particularly for Maori and Pacific people.

Together the participants of the cluster have developed their own models of care and there have been opportunities to work together and build on each other's strengths. The key community group involved in forming the cluster is Healthlinks which includes Maori, Pacific and community groups as well as health care providers.

Included in the functions identified by Healthlinks to achieve their vision10 is "encouraging and engaging in deliberation".

As noted, most SCPI associates are involved directly in community activities rather than being specialist facilitators or moderators. For example, in the Porirua group there is a closely connected process of dialogue, action, reflection and further action. In practice what people have learned from their connections with Kettering has been brought directly into their community activities. People have not kept their dialogue activities separate from their ongoing community activities. Many of our facilitators are not primarily from an external organisation, they are usually members of the relevant community and in situations like that in Porirua we don't have 'interventions' with a beginning and an end.

Use of deliberative dialogue concepts by SCPI associates

Many of our associates have used ongoing and interactive dialogue in order to explore difficult issues where there may be layers of different forms of understanding, in some cases arising from different norms and values. In some cases these differences are due to cultural influences, for example with Maori and Pacific Island people and former refugees, while in others it stems from differences in terms of profession and status such as between psychiatrists and mental heath consumers and their families. Others have used the concepts in order to develop a more open and interactive form of work with their own colleagues or within their own organisation.

Although some of these activities such as the Women's Inter-faith Network and the Iwi Fisheries forum have taken on a more formalised form they are all outcomes of initiatives by individuals who have been engaged with the deliberation and sustained dialogue ideas. The following four examples show ways in which this influence has been expressed in practice and in each case the key player is also linked to other activities within the SCPI deliberative network.

(a) Maureen Gillon - Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners

Following Hal Saunders visit in 1999 Maureen Gillon11 (National Quality
Development Coordinator with RNZCGP)introduced a deliberative process into the work of the College, and began developing a team approach with other parts of the sector. This involved moving out from individual GPs to a teamwork approach. The annual quality standards symposium began in 2000 with 20 people and in 2009 had 340 participants including NGOs. The key issue is to get primary health care connected and look at quality, money and services. There continue to be tensions in general practice as it is publicly funded but privately owned. Maureen said the ideal is for them to operate like a fleet of ships all moving together as a group where each keeps its own identity as they move together as a group towards a common goal.

Maureen reported that the key current issue is how to continue talking and working together; how to move forward from the initial deliberation to a situation where there is a meaningful, ongoing talk with a diversity of views being present while heading for common goals. The situation in the health sector may now have the "speed wobbles" due to the changed political situation with a new government. The College of GPs needs to reclaim the process from specific interest groups and politicians. There have been ten years of talk on a journey with decision-making points based on inputs from evidence as well as reinforcement of the process from outside through connections with SCPI and Kettering Foundation.

(b) Margaret Mayman - St Andrews Presbyterian Church

Rev. Margaret Mayman, Minister at St Andrews on the Terrace in Wellington, attended Hal Saunders' sessions in Wellington in 2003. She sees value in a methodology that provides a framework for the possibility of reflection, the structure to assess the (dialogue) process and to have something to measure this progress against. The value is in providing this framework for reflection and assessing progress rather than being a "directive" structure. Margaret is directly involved in several deliberative processes and a detailed report on the Women's Inter-faith Network is attached in appendix 3.

St Andrews has made a major change in the form of their regular dialogues as a result of her involvement with the deliberation group. Formerly it was considered to be a "safe space" for people with similar, generally progressive, views to come together and discuss issues of concern. They have now taken up the challenge of bringing together people from different backgrounds with a wide range of views to provide a forum where participants can exchange views and explore ways of reaching common understanding.

Spirited Conversations is a group that meets monthly and the learning from deliberation and sustained dialogue has been utilised to make this into a more conversational group. Initially they had formal speakers - now they have shared conversations. Although the topic is different at each meeting the group is largely made up of the same people. Topics are around issues such as How do communities respond to different pressures, concerns, and crises? and What do we mean by, and what do we need to do to be "living in our community".

The Women's Inter-Faith Network has met four times in its first year of operation. The group includes six people from each of five faith groups (Jewish, Buddhist, Moslem, Catholic, Protestant). They aim to discuss issues in a dialogue form rather than having set speakers - when there was a set speaker this did not enable the usual open discussion.

Margaret is also linked to the SCPI deliberation group through her connections with the Change Makers Refugee Forum and is the Presbyterian Church representative on the Refugee Services Board.

(c) Tu Williams - Iwi12 Fisheries Forum

Tu Williams is member of the SCPI Board of Trustees and has been involved with our work with deliberation from the beginning. In 1999 he joined Sue Driver on a short-term fellowship in Dayton and in 2001 co-facilitated with Sue Driver the deliberation on the "Growing and use of marijuana" in Opotiki, Bay of Plenty.

In 2003 Tu talked with the Maori leadership in the Bay of Plenty about their Regional Fisheries Forum in the sustained dialogue context. They had held a series of ongoing (usually monthly) meetings on customary fisheries issues as well as wider fisheries issues and they reflected on the meetings and what they were really doing each time they met.

The key issue identified was relationships and, in particular, how they had got inside the inter hapu/iwi relationships throughout the region and the changes in those relationships which have taken place over time. Things that had strained those relationships, such as whose space is this (boundary issues that have divided hapu over a protracted period of time), conflict between the tribal authorities as entities who believe they have a sweeping mandate to exercise authority over these areas over and above the authority of hapu, soured personal relationships. The leaders, in reflecting on where they had started from and where they have got to, came to the conclusion that relationships are the key to making good progress.

The Forum had become the dialogue room for the Crown (New Zealand Government represented by the Ministry of Fisheries) to work on Treaty relationships, and it was proposed that it also be a dialogue room for other stakeholder groups such as commercial and recreational fishers, but equally as important the community. Iwi are working through ways of including community in the customary stakeholder area and how to make that work in practice. A 12-month contract was signed with the Ministry of Fisheries in 2009 to run a forum to implement milestones identified in earlier meetings. This covers policies and plans developed through an ongoing dialogue among 18 iwi and numerous hapu in the Bay of Plenty.

In reviewing the situation in 2009 Tu said that the use of a form of ongoing dialogue has been important as a way of resolving boundary issues e.g. between adjacent tribes over fisheries and other marine resources. His experience is that a form of sustained dialogue brings focus onto the ongoing nature of the talk, but this does not necessarily take place on a planned and regular basis. The experience of Maori is that the dialogue will come up again - in another forum, in another place, in other circumstances. This process may not always be planned e.g. current Government discussions on Whanau Ora (a major initiative from the Maori Party to provide health and social services for Maori through Maori agencies), where conversations have been taking place among different people, in different fora. They have taken different pathways depending on who has been involved and what the circumstances have been.

Contact with SCPI and the Kettering Foundation has helped Tu and his colleagues identify what was already happening in the Maori community in relation to ways of talking about issues. It has provided a framework which has helped uncover and endorsed existing forms of discussion and has given confidence that this ongoing, (sometimes slow) process has a real value and legitimacy. There are some unanswered questions around how the Maori tribal framework impacts on a sustained dialogue approach in terms of who has a mandate to start or to join a conversation.

It was suggested that it would be useful for the Kettering Foundation and the International Institute for Sustained Dialogue to connect with existing different customary models of dialogue and develop an understanding of their functions rather than trying to fit all development of dialogue into their models. There is interest in what we can learn from each other.

This opens up the possibility of exploring further the similarities and differences between customary forms of dialogue and the Kettering approach. There is interest among Maori in what sits underneath most discussions and how to link this to other experiences. The dialogue includes discussions on how to get information as well as how to deal with concerns. Often when you find solutions then you also discover that the process has uncovered a whole new set of issues.

(d) George Salmond - community entrepreneurs network

The community entrepreneurs network was funded by a major NZ charitable foundation to bring together proven NGO leaders to talk (to dialogue) with each other over the last three years. They have held retreats, set up a 'buddy' system and provided mentoring. The idea was to bring people together to talk - not to gain funding from the foundation. As a result of this dialogue people have now come together to form mutually supportive relationships and to share and draw upon each other's skills. George Salmond13, a SCPI associate, joined the project governance group and he considers that the ideas behind sustained dialogue were worked out in practice. The exchange of views and experiences and listening to those of others has extended an understanding of other people's points of view while adding practical evidence to the discussion has led to an emergent theory of change. George reported that there has been a 'dialogue sustained' within the entrepreneurs' organisation. Group members have built understanding and developed their confidence within the group and then acted separately but with mutual support.

He considers that while sustained dialogue is a useful element in the community development process it is not useful as a stand-alone approach. He has taken into his own approach a more reflective and deliberative approach, key points being:

  1. The dialogue is ongoing - reflective, interactive, exploring and questioning.
  2. It is open-ended and not constrained by pre-selected views.
  3. Involves participants with different interests - and is directed at developing understanding of each other and of each other's views.

Institutional use of deliberation and sustained dialogue

(a) Mental Health Foundation

The Mental Health Foundation completed the field work for their Families, Whānau14, Mental Illness and Discrimination research project in September 2009. This project was initiated by Alex Barnes (who attended the DDW in 2008 and 2009) with David Robinson and Alex Awad being members of the project advisory group.

The initial intention was to include several meetings of each focus group and two meetings of the collective dialogue forum. A chart setting out the original proposed model is attached in appendix 6. However, funding constraints together with limited understanding in the advisory group of the potential for using deliberation and/or dialogue as a research tool resulted in a standard deliberation model being used. Although it was suggested that using a form of deliberative dialogue as a research methodology could result in a deeper level of response from participants and lead to the collection of a different kind of information this was not considered to merit the extra time and staff resources required. The use of one focus group for each special interest group to collect the views of participants was considered to be adequate to feed into the issues book while the "dialogue" component of the project was provided through bringing two people from each focus group together for a one-day forum. The original proposal was for two final discussion forums, at the first participants would have a general discussion based on the issues book and group the themes together and at the second they would help produce key strategies.

The value of a process that would bring people together to collectively talk about the experiences and then go away and reflect on issues raised as well as to talk with family and friends before coming back for two further meetings to explore both their common and different experiences and responses was not recognised at that stage.

Nine focus groups and a one-day national Discussion Forum took place during 2009 with a total of 88 people participating from both families and people with experience of mental illness from a range of cultural groups.

A Summary of Key Issues was prepared following the focus group meetings and sent to each attendee before the forum. The Summary provided attendees with a synopsis of findings from the focus groups and also served as a stimulus for dialogue between the families and people with experience of mental illness who attended the Forum.

The process consisted of one focus group for each "interest group" (Maori, Pacific, Chinese, consumers, families) followed by a full-day "dialogue forum". Although this limited the depth of information gained from the process MHF has learned a considerable amount about the process (as well as gathering information on discrimination) and they are interested in deepening their involvement with "dialogue". The MHF Senior Researcher said:

"The Dialogue Forum was immensely powerful ……. we discussed the possibility of Dialogue Forums becoming part of the strategies for reducing discrimination - so hope to explore this further at our final Ref Group meeting. Your ideas would be invaluable. There is definitely value in continuing the dialogue in some way so hopefully the Like Minds Like Mine programme will pick this up when we make our recommendations. It would be great to see Dialogue Forums become a mainstream strategy."

The most common source of discrimination towards families from others, reported across all focus groups, was mainstream mental health services and extended family. In terms of discrimination within families there were significant disparities between focus groups. Families generally reported that there isn't discrimination within their immediate families. In contrast, Pacific and Chinese families, and people with experience of mental illness generally reported that there is discrimination within their families.

The draft report circulated to the advisory group following the forum revealed a degree of contradiction between a general agreement that the biomedical model is responsible for creating discrimination which then influenced family attitudes, and frequent statements that discrimination is endemic within the family and the culture. This was particularly evident among Pacific people. The draft report said, "Pacific participants regarded discrimination and the use of discriminatory language in relation to mental illness within their families and Pacific communities as particularly marked. Being called names or referred to as an animal such as a dog, vulture or pig was common."

SCPI has suggested to the project advisory group that the relationship between cultural perceptions of mental illness and views on the impact of the biomedical model could be explored in a second round of dialogue forums. The forum report said "participants in the dialogue groups and the one-day forum overwhelmingly believed that the causes of discrimination could be effectively reduced through greater dialogue, sharing of experience, genuine interest, respect for everyone involved and compassion". Whether resources will be available to implement this process is unclear. However, the original proposal to hold three dialogue sessions with each group rather than limiting them to one three-hour meeting each prior to the forum would have provided an opportunity to go beyond collecting existing viewpoints and prejudices to explore underlying issues. A project being developed with Changemakers Refugee Forum to explore attitudes towards and ways of dealing with mental health issues in the Sudanese refugee community proposes to use a series of ongoing dialogues to help identify underlying attitudes and ways in which mental health services could better deal with them.

Chosen Model and Method

Below is an outline of the original research process proposed by the Mental Health Foundation.

The preferred research method for this research will be based on deliberative dialogue focus groups and forums.

(b) Bioethics Council.

Although the Bioethics Council used the term deliberative dialogue and the process was promoted as a "dialogue" about the issues, basically they used a deliberation process15. The "dialogue" element involved inviting the same group of participants back for a second one-day session with a two-week break in between.

Experience on the Bioethics Council was that (respectful) dialogue did not lead to major change of opinions but was followed by increased understanding of other points of view. It was also possible in the deliberation part of the process to consider all points of view and come to some agreement on a way forward.

The Bioethics Council use of deliberation is an outcome of numerous discussions that SCPI has had with the Bioethics Council since its formation in 2002. This has included meetings with Helen Bichan (a Council member) who also attended several of Hal Saunders' sessions, addressing a board meeting of the Bioethics Council and numerous discussions with their senior staff. SCPI associates participated in and commented on both their Pre-Birth Testing exercise, and their earlier use of deliberation in considering xenotransplantation. Staff from the Bioethics Council Secretariat were invited to give a "master class" at the 2008 OECD/European Commission/World Bank/INVOLVE international workshop, "Building Citizen Centred Policies and Services" in Slovenia where they were asked to talk about their "innovative deliberative work" in relation to pre-birth testing.

Hal Saunders' first visit to Wellington in 1999 pre-dated the establishment of the Bioethics Council and Helen Bichan promoted the use of a deliberation approach in the Bioethics Council from its inception in 2002. This stimulated the interest of the Board and staff who were encouraged to explore the use of a deliberative approach.

Helen is now involved with the Inter Church Ethics Council, and continues to be a regular member of the Porirua Thursday morning discussion group.

Helen found that the Thursday morning group was a key place for ideas to emerge in Porirua. What was most important was the process of bouncing ideas off each other as well as the support provided to individuals in their own work. The group comes together in order to identify an issue rather than to solve a problem. It is part of the process of building a network, or rather, a series of intersecting networks. There are sectoral cross-overs between religion, health, social services, community education, community action and local government. This is in contrast to the approach by Government which remains focussed on specific sectors.

The value of the workshops and meetings organised by SCPI with Hal Saunders' and Teddy Nemeroff was in triggering and stimulating interest in a deliberative dialogue approach while ongoing support from SCPI to those developing the process assisted in putting this into practice. Helen brought in people to support and back-up her views including an invitation for SCPI to address the Bioethics Board. This enabled them to flesh out the concept of deliberation with a framework and acknowledged expertise. Her experience is that it is important for people to present ideas in a way that become acceptable to the decision-makers.

Through these various inputs staff members were able to connect a practical community development approach to the academic material. In developing and using a deliberative approach they began with focus groups to identify the nature of the topics then built up their own knowledge and expertise through an ongoing reflective process. Each iteration added to the process e.g. the move from the deliberation on xenotransplantation to a more in-depth approach on pre-birth testing. The Bio Ethics Council found it was more resource effective to take the dialogue process into an already well-organised group such as a kohanga reo (Maori pre-school education) group. They did not effectively get into the issue of how to bring different groups together - their experience was that people need to be ready to talk and to share. There has to be a rationale for meeting and in this sense the issue was external to the group, rather than being one of intense internal concern.

It is important to note that the Kettering deliberation and sustained dialogue material was not the only deliberative approaches they looked at e.g. two staff members attended a workshop on deliberation run by Lyn Carsons who teaches a course on dialogue, deliberation and public engagement at the University of Sydney, Australia.

However, the SCPI/Kettering input stimulated the initial interest and was an important building block in developing the Bio Ethics Council approach.

The evaluation of the deliberative process used was positive with the summary of the evaluation of the Pre-Birth Testing programme stating: "From participants' responses during the deliberative events, and through written surveys and interviews, it is clear that they were very interested in and appreciative of the opportunity to be involved in a structured public engagement process. As the survey results showed, they were also confident that the outputs of the events would be noted and used by the Council and would inform decision-making.... As noted earlier, a number of the participants were as interested in the development of public engagement processes in New Zealand as they were in the topic of pre-birth testing."

However, there was concern that the Council was not making enough difference to public views or impacting on policy. The relationship between relatively small numbers of people deliberating over an issue and improving their own knowledge and the process of changing Government policy was not clear. The question was what direction should the Bio Ethics Council take - how to get emerging ideas into the policy-making process? The State Services Commission carried out a review of the Bio Ethics Council and the Council was disbanded by the newly elected Government at the beginning of 2009.

Conclusion

The value for New Zealand in our engagement with the Kettering Foundation and subsequent workshops, discussions and material on deliberation and sustained dialogue can clearly be seen in the way in which a number of individuals and organisations have adopted a more open, interactive and "deliberative" approach.

A number of attempts to encourage people in several communities to engage in structured sustained dialogue around issues of concern have not been successful.

Although there was considerable interest in the workshops and other discussions with Hal Saunders and Teddy Nemeroff during their visits the legacy of these connections can not be seen in a roll-out of the sustained dialogue approach in a formalised way in a community context. The emphasis on the usefulness of this process in situations of conflict may have led to some communities viewing it as unnecessarily specialised and complex.

On the other hand the need for more in-depth and reflective conversations among diverse groups with different experiences, views and beliefs has been accepted.

The deliberation structure has been more readily accepted and adapted as it is seen to fit situations where complex issues need addressing and where there may be a range of differing "technical" information available.

The tentative use of amended forms of the deliberative process by the Bioethics Council and the Mental Health Foundation (as well as a scoping exercise carried out by the Families Commission) as research tools suggests a fruitful area of future work. In both cases these projects were referred to by the agencies as forms of "dialogue", a term which seems to have become more easily adopted, although in a more generic sense that that meant by "sustained dialogue".

The Bioethics Council used "deliberative dialogue", Parker Duignan called their process "rich dialogue" and in Fiji ECREA refer to one their initiatives as "hopeful dialogue".

SCPI plans to run a one-day workshop for those consulted in preparing this report, and other of our associates to discuss their way forward with deliberation and dialogue.

The indications are that we will focus our efforts in two main directions.

The first is in developing our capacity to provide support and mentoring of SCPI associates and others who are interested in using deliberative dialogue approach in their own work. A key focus will be on providing spaces for people to share their experiences and to have access to peer support in identifying ways in which they can move forward.

The second is to work with the Mental Health Foundation and other interested agencies in further exploring and developing the use of a deliberative dialogue approach as a research tool. Independent of the MHF we are developing two other research projects on mental health issues. One of these is currently being discussed with the Wellington Regional Health Ethics Committee. In this process issues have been raised about the confidentiality of information collected through collective dialogue groups.

We will keep the Kettering Foundation and the International Institute for Sustained Dialogue informed on progress as this work proceeds.

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Chronology of deliberative activities

Appendix 2 - Case Study: Wellington Women's Interfaith Network

Appendix 3 - The Porirua Experience

Appendix 4 - From the Bioethics Council website

Appendix 5 - SCPI proposal for dialogue on Treaty of Waitangi issues

Appendix 6 - References

Appendix 1 - Chronology of deliberative activities

1996 - David Robinson, Director of the New Zealand Social and Civic Policy Institute was invited to a Kettering Foundation International Civil Society Consortium forum in Salzburg at the recommendation of the Secretary General of CIVICUS. David attended subsequent ICSC forums in Puerto Rico, 1998 and Fort Lauderdale, 1999.

1997 - Sue Driver attended DDW in Dayton Ohio.

1999 - Hal Saunders first visit to New Zealand which included meetings with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Health.

1999 - Sue Driver and Tu Williams joint short-term fellowship in Dayton.

2000 - Public Politics in Practice - a handbook on deliberation published by SCPI.

2000 - Deliberation training workshop orgainsed in Wellington by SCPI facilitator Sue Driver with Betty Knighton and Ruth Yellowhawk from Kettering Foundation.

2001 - Growing and use of marijuana deliberation held in Opotiki, co-facilitated by Tu Williams and Sue Driver.

2002 - Bio-Ethics Council formed.

2003 - Hal Saunders' second visit to Wellington and Auckland.

2003 - Richard Davis's KF fellowship.

2004 - Louis Smith's KF fellowship.

2004 - Workshop at West Virginia University and panel at ISTR conference in Toronto, July.

2005 - Four-day training workshop on Social Justice and Sustained Dialogue at ECREA in Suva, Fiji.

2005 - Teddy Nemeroff's visit to Wellington, Opotiki and Auckland.

2006 - Workshop on sustained dialogue with David Robinson and Teddy Nemeroff at CIVICUS World Assembly in Glasgow.

2009 - Kayt Robinson Public Journalism Fellowship.

Since Sue Driver's attendance at DDW in 1997 SCPI has sponsored 20 people to subsequent workshops. In addition to Sue Driver and Tu Williams joint six-week fellowship in 2000 two have continued their relationship with the Kettering Foundation through six-month civil society fellowships and one to a Public Journalism Fellowship. Five others have participated in research and ICSC meetings.

Appendix 2 - Case Study: Wellington Women's Interfaith Network

Rev. Margaret Mayman, St Andrews on the Terrace Presbyterian Church, Wellington.

What did you think was the problem when you first addressed it?

An Inter-faith Council has been in existence in Wellington for over twenty five years. Because those who participated in it tended to "gate keep" either intentionally or unconsciously, the project of increasing understanding among different faith groups was not progressing and was limited to select individuals rather than having a wider influence in local faith communities. This may have been satisfactory during the eighties and nineties but two factors had changed the situation and made the project more urgent and less of a "luxury" activity. The first was September 11 2001. Religion, particularly Islam, was indiscriminately associated with terrorism in the minds of many people. Religion became more widely discussed and was often characterized as the cause of international tensions. The second was the increasing number of recent migrants and refugees who belonged to minority religious groups who were settling in Wellington. Whereas earlier arrivals had tended to be migrants including people with professional skills, the new arrivals included refugees who had been selected to come here on the UNHCR quota. They had been living in refugee camps and their settlement process was more challenging. African and Middle Eastern Muslim refugees, especially women, were easily identifiable because of their dress. Some had experienced harassment and criminal incidents involving some disturbed members of their community, which led to stereotyping of the whole community.

New Zealand is a predominantly secular country. Only 50% of the population identify as Christian and fewer than 20% attend religious services at least monthly. Religion is regarded as an essentially private matter. The settlement process does nothing to address the religious or spiritual needs of refugees. On the other hand, new arrivals often have an intensified sense of religious identity as a result of their refugee or migrant experience. The practice of religion is an important method of holding on to identity and keeping family and community united. This represents a tension between the dominant secular group and the religious minorities. The private/public separation of religion and social life is no longer easily maintained.

The final aspect of "the problem" was the male-dominated nature of existing inter-faith dialogue. For the three years before our network began, there had been a one-day Women's forum, which was held before the annual National Inter-Faith Forum. Women at these meetings identified the problem that some women had in speaking about their faith in a mixed gender setting. Even pakeha (New Zealanders of European origin) women spoke of the 'capture' of inter-faith by male religious leaders and the lack of connection with people in grass roots faith communities. The Inter-Faith events were also dominated by academic practitioners of religious studies and by government agencies, which were more focused on managing diversity than fostering dialogue.

Who eventually named the problem as the project began? The organizers? Or the participants in the deliberation/dialogue when they came together?

The problem was named by the organizers who were a core group of women who had met at National Interfaith Gatherings over several years. The motivation for the dialogues were shared with the participants.

What was the problem behind the apparent problem?

My perception of the problem behind the problem, is the lack of opportunity to meet with people whose faith is different to our own. So on one level, there was a practical resolution. But there were also deep cultural/religious differences that made understanding difficult and people sometimes "missed" each other. The desire to be "polite" means that people are not open about their conflicts and disagreements.

Who selected the participants, after talking with whom? Who convened? Who were the moderators?

Members of the core group invited participants from their networks. Core group members shared the convening and moderation. We also shared "hosting" in our different faith communities.

Describe what the moderators did? Were they consciously using a deliberative forum model, a Sustained Dialogue model, or did they consciously decide on a hybrid-an adaptation?

We used a hybrid model using insights from deliberation and sustained dialogue. Only one of the convenor/moderators was trained in these models but others were open to insights and processes. We adapted the process to suit the topic of religious diversity. There have been three day-long meetings and one evening meeting (less successful because the host introduced an "expert" as a speaker).

We used an introduction method based on symbols associated with our faiths. Faith group members worked together in this process so that helped strengthen "intra faith" relationships as well as inter-faith. Respectful questioning was encouraged. We also did story telling in smaller groups. For a dialogue we had a large number of participants (35) so it was good to deepen connections in smaller groups. One of the women who attended was a Pacific Island woman with a high community profile. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer. So at the first meeting the participants decorated "patches" to make a quilt for her using the activity as a opportunity to reflect on what we had learned about one another. At the second gathering the quilt was sewn together. On this occasion, we used the activity as an opportunity to "ask difficult questions about one another's faiths," in a safe environment. This worked really well because the combination of a "traditional" activity and talking somehow defused what might have been a tense encounter.

Another topic that was explored at the second gathering was the differences within each of the faiths. This helped participants have more nuanced understandings of one another's traditions so we were less likely to say "All Muslims believe…. " or "all Jews do…."

There have been demonstrable changes in the community. People are attending events and celebrations at one another's faith community. There is more confidence to attend one another's celebrations (reduced anxiety that you might say or do the wrong thing). At other inter-faith events in the city, the women's network has provided (subtle) support for women to participate more fully alongside men.

The process of relationship building is ongoing. However, everyone involved is rather over committed within their own communities and it has been hard to keep momentum going for more meetings. But at the last open meeting of the Wellington Inter-Faith forum (men and women, more formal group) it was interesting to see that two of the speakers spoke positively about belonging to the "Women's Inter-faith Network" so it obviously has an impact on them, even when it does not meet very frequently.

Appendix 3 - The Porirua Experience

Maureen Gillon, former Porirua City Councillor and Chair of Healthlinks.

We found that an understanding of the structure and complexity of relationships has been essential to sustained dialogue. As we have evolved it has provided a greater understanding of the way our community works around issues. Dialogue on its own is really just a two-way conversation, and a mechanism for gathering information. Sustained dialogue provides the structure for a commitment to an ongoing discussion where action and feedback happens and the process evolves continually. Sustained dialogue has provided a method to enable us to move our local health agenda forward.

The visits to Kettering by the Porirua representatives have provided an opportunity to step outside the local process and change the approach. It provided the opportunity to review what we are doing and introduce a different approach. It has also provided better tools and processes to enable us to continue to evolve our process so that communities and agencies can work together more effectively. The Social and Civic Policy Institute has provided support, leadership, mentoring and connection with a wider group to enable us to share information and experience and learn from each other. Keeping connected has been useful for 'our own sustained dialogue'. It's a useful peer group to share or test ideas.

Relationships.

In Porirua, relationships are essential for sustained dialogue. Porirua experiences have shown that launching straight into a process before getting the relationships right is sure to fail. The preconditions for sustained dialogue appear to be confidence that those taking the initiative are known to the community and can be trusted. Diverse communities increase the complexity of relationships and our experience shows that people cluster around the issues that most affect them, or that they become involved to support their particular community. Sustained dialogue has no passive observers, but cultural understanding and ways of working have increased the difficulty in accessing some communities. It is important to find the right (trusted) person so they can provide access or permission for dialogue to begin.

Naming - the Porirua Health Partnership Thursday morning coffee session.

This group has been meeting regularly since 1996 and its informality is the basis for its success. Members have a collective vision to improve outcomes for Maori, Pacific and low income communities in Porirua. There is a core group which is joined regularly by others who want to explore an issue. This group forms the 'think tank' of innovative and commited people with combined knowledge, networks and passion for wanting improvements in health to eliminate disparity. The thinking generated by this group has informed a number of local and national initiatives.

The group initially raised the matter of health disparities in Porirua and identified a number of areas that they believed could be improved. The group met with the Chief Executive at Porirua City Council to identify how key organizations and interested parties could be brought together to discuss the matter and raise the issue to the civic level. This coincided with a decision to be made by the government on the site for the new regional hospital. The Council, Ngatitoa (the local Maori tribe), Communities of Porirua and Capital Coast District Health Board worked together to develop a business case. The Minister did not agree to site the hospital at Kenepuru in Porirua City but did agree to fund the Porirua Healthlinks project to undertake a needs assessment to validate health status. This required all stakeholders to work together - including the Ministry of Health.

Moderator - Thursday morning group.

The person who wishes to raise the issue is the moderator. It can be someone from within the group or someone who has approached the group to seek advice or assistance with progressing their issue. There are times when an external person has asked one of the core group to moderate for them. To name the issue the moderator describes the problem, and the group seek clarification from the moderator. The issue is discussed within the group and they continue to seek clarification from the moderator to get to the core of the matter.

One of the main benefits of the group is its 'think tank' capability and this happens when both sides have an understanding of the matter and they test ideas based on their knowledge, understanding, or skills, in that area. Once the moderator and the group are in agreement that they have identified the problem, they then discuss how the matter could be progressed and suggest links or actions that the moderator can follow. If it is an external moderator or participant they may, or may not, report back progress to the group. This is not a requirement. No minutes are taken, some take notes if they are interested or involved in taking action.

Framing - Porirua Healthlinks

The Porirua Healthlinks Trust was tasked with producing a needs assessment and framing the issues that needed to be addressed. The Communities of Porirua were actively engaged in processes to identify local solutions that they thought would work for them. This involved using local people to go out to the communities and meeting with them in their gathering places, churches, homes, marae or where they were most comfortable. The process captured community stories and developed information in a format that enabled health providers and agencies to address the issues through their strategic and annual planning processes and practice. The Porirua City Health and Disability Report and Plan 2000 is available on www.moh.govt.nz

The outcomes were monitored by the Porirua City Council which has now successfully developed a Community Outcomes process and collects information from key community organizations, including health and wellbeing, see the Community Outcomes Action Plan 2009 - 2015 at www.pcc.govt.nz

Moderator - Healthlinks role.

The role of moderator has changed with each new Manager as they have adapted the role to suit their personal styles. Louis Smith's (who became Manager on his return from Dayton) Kettering Foundation fellowship was a catalyst in bringing a more deliberative approach to health planning. There was also considerable impact from the "bringing community voices to the table" project which was concerned with employment opportunities among older Pacific Island people. Bringing local people together to talk about the local situation and then taking the issues on to the Council helped to build their confidence.

The Porirua Heatlhlinks Trust has described the Healthlinks role as a community moderator in its trust deed. Its role as moderator in relation to the Porirua City Health and Disability Report and Plan 2000, was to ensure that local and regional agencies were keeping focused on meeting the actions identified in the plan, which also noted the agencies responsible. This involved:

As the relationships strengthened the trust floated the idea of a more collaborative approach to the activity so that alignment of strategic plans and closer working relationships around future services could occur. A small group from the trust and Porirua Health Partnership worked with the CEO at the City Council to frame a proposal to develop 'the Porirua Centre of Excellence'. The proposal and an invitation to attend a forum was sent to community organizations, individuals and various agencies with an interest in health. The forum was attended by approximately 150 people to discuss the concept. Each of the moderators had been trained by SCPI and the Kettering Foundation and followed the deliberation process, which worked well. The meeting used the breakout sessions effectively to develop issues for action and the meeting agreed on an outcome which was to establish the Porirua Centre of Excellence.

Deliberation - the Porirua Centre of Excellence in HealthCare delivery

The Centre of Excellence was initiated after the Porirua City Health and Disability Plan and Report 2000 was produced. It was agreed that all key players would meet on a regular basis to establish how the community outcomes would be implemented. Participants included, the Chair and CEO of the: District Health Board, Porirua City Council, Ngatitoa, Public Health Organizations (3), Regional Public Health, Whitieria Polytechnic, Wellington School of Medicine, Ministry of Health, Healthlinks, Porirua Health Partnership, Porirua Healthy Safer Cities Trust and a representative of Pacific people.

The institutional moderator was the City Council. This model was established because of its official status and standing in the local system and its ability to monitor the agencies. Its role as moderator was to convene the meeting of participant organisations that had an influence in planning, funding, or a responsibility for providing services to different populations (as above). Each organisation was asked to report to the Centre of Excellence group against actions set out in the plan. The tone of each meeting was formal, with minutes taken and papers prepared if necessary. Information was recorded in the public system and minutes were shared. The CEO of the Council provided administration support to the group and the meeting was Chaired by the Mayor or a City Councillor. Terms of Reference were identified and include principles and a purpose. The Chair facilitated the meeting and the CEO facilitated the group to work together to develop a strategy. The Group agreed that it wanted to work collaboratively on a specific health matter of concern and diabetes was identified as the major health risk.

Designing action

Each member organization agreed to use the community outcomes framework to develop a strategy, agenda for action, monitoring progress against the actions and sharing information about outcomes. The groups were required to identify what they were responsible for and present progress at each meeting. Having better information enabled the group to identify diabetes as the main concern and working more closely with agencies and communities provided the opportunity to develop a plan. The Manager of Healthlinks, a member of the Porirua Health Partnership agreed to coordinate a group that comprised health practitioners, regional public health, sport and recreation, dieticians, and others responsible for treatment and management of diabetes. The group worked to develop a plan and identified the focus for city action as preventing diabetes.

The organizing group named themselves the Defeat Diabetes Team and presented their concept plan to the Centre of Excellence Group. Members of the Centre of Excellence agreed to support the plan and implement the actions within their own strategic and annual planning process.

Taking action

Members of the Centre of Excellence group decided it would utilize its combined efforts to identify how it could work collaboratively to support the Defeat Diabetes Team to meet the goals of the HEHA (Healthy Eating, Healthy Action) plan. In addition the Porirua City Health and Disability Report and Plan had highlighted gaps in the health workforce as a barrier to progress.

The Centre of Excellence moderated the activity at a strategic level, but around issues, people who were interested in making progress emerged to ensure each matter was progressed. Healthlinks was a key player and acted as a conduit for action between communities, agencies and others.

Each of the initiatives followed the five steps: naming, framing, deliberation, designing action, taking action.

The Diabetes Cluster and Defeat Diabetes Team

This initiative was established at the request of the Centre of Excellence to enable local health providers to work together to establish better ways of providing care to improve outcomes for people with diabetes and to identify ways of preventing diabetes from occurring. The Centre of Excellence group developed a Strategy, plan (HEHA) and a monitoring framework. Each organization also included the actions in their annual plans.

Each organization supported members of their staff to form a team to identify how they would meet the goals of the HEHA plan and work collaboratively: local health providers, primary health organizations, Porirua City Council Recreation team and Regional Public Health reported progress against their Plan for Healthy Eating, Healthy Action (HEHA) in Porirua. Taking action included working with communities to develop activities that would help prevent diabetes. This is where the idea for the Creekfest community fesitival (held in Cannons Creek, a Porirua suburb with a high Pacific population) originated. CCDHB results are beginning to show significant improvements for diabetes.

Community Based Clinical Training model

The Centre of Excellence established a small working group to explore the possibility of urban Community Based Clinical Training. This is progressing well and has involved working across the health workforce landscape and obtaining support at all relevant levels of the health system including the Minister of Health, Ministry of Health, CTA, WSM, Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners and Whitieriea Polytechnic. Funding has been made available to test the model. This will require deliberation with teaching practices and the District Health Board.

Summary

All these activities are part of a never-ending journey. Ideas have been picked up on the way from Kettering and also from the social capital concept of clusters. An important factor that was brought into the mix is that you cannot just involve one group, it is important to bring others into the dialogue. It is also important to involve the media - this has been done successfully with the local papers but has not been as successful with mainstream media. Kettering helped by providing a point of reference in the ongoing work of dialogue, and contact with like-minded people and the opportunity to exchange experiences and discussing issues has been very important. The independence of SCPI was an important factor in this being accepted. There has been a move from consultation, which can end in conflict (especially in health issues) and raise tensions to participation. People have learned that it is possible to do things differently.

A key turning point was the deliberative discussion in Porirua over the move to a community hospital at Keneperu. There have been spin-offs from each project and subsequent development.

Appendix 4 - From the Bioethics Council website

www.bioethics.org.nz

Dialogue and why it is needed in NZ

In advising the Government about the ethical, cultural and spiritual views of New Zealanders in relation to biotechnology, Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council will base its advice on dialogue with New Zealanders.

Towards a New Zealand process for dialogue

The Bioethics Council recognises that New Zealanders must be given every opportunity to participate in shaping cultural, ethical and spiritual decisions around biotechnology. The Council will make every effort to tailor processes for dialogue that are suitable for New Zealand, including the following considerations:

Why dialogue is needed

Rapidly emerging technologies challenge societies. The rapid emergence of new technologies, especially biotechnologies, challenge the ways in which people and societies think about:

Citizens have a role in decision making

Governments, academics and other commentators in New Zealand and internationally have recognised that a country's citizens have a role to play in decision-making about whether to implement certain technologies. Such decisions cannot just be left to governments, business, scientists and technologists alone.

Governments need to know communities' views

Over the years governments have increasingly used various methods of consultation to seek the views of communities on important issues. However, consultation may be perceived as a means whereby those doing the consulting set the agenda, frame the questions and narrow the possible responses to suit their own purposes. True or not, consultation does have real limitations. For communities to actively engage on the important issues, other ways of constructing conversations are needed.

About 'dialogue'

In a dialogue, "...nobody is trying to win. In dialogue there is no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular point of view prevail....But a dialogue is something more of a common participation, in which we are not playing a game against each other, but with each other. In a dialogue everybody wins. Dialogue is really aimed at going into the whole thought processes and changing the way the thought process occurs collectively."
David Bohm

Appendix 5 - SCPI proposal for dialogue on Treaty of Waitangi issues.

"New Zealand's Future - What Place for the Treaty?"

In 2005 SCPI and the Victoria University Institute of Policy Studies submitted a joint proposal to the State Services Commission Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit for funding for a two-year project to address "New Zealand's Future - What Place for the Treaty?" This proposed to use a deliberative dialogue approach.

This followed an announcement at the Labour Party conference in 2004 by the Prime Minister that a Parliamentary Select Committee would examine constitutional issues and a series of "community conversations" would be run in a parallel process with a major touring exhibition. Initial discussions with SSC indicated that the SCPI/IPS proposal would be likely to play a key part in this process, which would include around 40 to 50 community dialogues. The SSC Communications Unit put out a Request for Proposals seeking advice on a strategy to promote the community discussions which drew on the our proposal.

"The key purpose of the community discussions about the Treaty is that they will provide New Zealanders with the opportunity, and on-going support, to get together to consider and discuss the place of the Treaty in New Zealand, now and in the future. These discussions will take the Treaty Information Programme beyond its current historical focus to include the contemporary place of the Treaty. This is a benefit that is not being sought by the current Treaty Information Programme."

The overall intention of the SSC programme was to increase public knowledge of the Treaty through greater co-ordination of existing information initiatives and the development of new initiatives and resources. SCPI proposed to use a dialogue approach to enable people to explore their own views and assumptions as well as those of others rather than just to present an "official" view of the Treaty.

In addition to this proposal for a series of public dialogues SCPI met with the governing Labour Party's Parliamentary Chief Whip and the opposition National Party's Deputy Leader both of whom supported the idea of a high level dialogue among the different parties with the aim of removing race relations from the political arena. However neither of the major political party leaders were willing to engage in such a process.

The SCPI/IPS proposal to SSC was not accepted, although elements of our proposed process were integrated into the final project which was brought back into direct in- house control by SSC. Discussions with senior SSC officials indicated that the Government was concerned about opening a dialogue on the issues. They wanted to present the current Government's view of the Treaty in an educational (rather than an exploratory) format. There was no space available for alternative views to be presented or opportunities for real-life experiences to be explored. Informal discussions suggested that the politicians had intervened and vetoed the use of a process that could have opened up a dialogue on race relations issues. The Government's preference was to keep closely to a presentation of educational material on the Treaty of Waitangi and its current place in legislation.

Appendix 6 - References

Cody, John Social Capital and Health: Community Health Activity in Porirua, in Social Capital in Action, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, 1999.

Cody, John Conceptualising Social Capital - Frameworks, inBuilding Social Capital, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, 2002.

Driver, Sue Public Politics in Practice - a handbook on deliberation, Social and Civic Policy Institute, Wellington, 1999.

Gillon, Maureen Terms of Engagement in Porirua - a case study for civic action on health, in Building Social Capital, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, 2002.

Gillon, Maureen The Porirua Health Cluster - a deliberative process in action, Kettering Deliberative Democracy Workshop, June 2004.

Robinson, David Becoming deliberative - a case study of activities using a deliberative approach in Porirua City, Kettering Foundation, 2003.

Robinson, David & Pacific Ways of Talk-Hui and Talanoa, in Collective Decision

Robinson, Kayt Making Around the World, Kettering Foundation, Dayton 2005.

Robinson, David &. Spaces for Dialogue - forming views on new and conflictual

Williams, Tu issues. Talking Bio-Technology Conference, Victoria

University of Wellington, November 2005.

Sukolski, Mike Effective, Inclusive Social Capital, inBuilding Social Capital,

Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington 2002

1 A short chronology of key events is attached as appendix 1.

2 Iwi is the Maori term for a tribal group.

3 See appendix 3 "The Porirua Experience".

4 The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840, is the founding document of New Zealand and established terms for relationships between Maori and the state.

5 See Kayt Robinson's paper Government - Community Engagement - a reflection on recent initiatives in the United States and New Zealand looking at how the governments can better engage with their publics.

6 This section draws on a paper by Kayt Robinson, Kettering Foundation Public Journalism Fellow, Government - Community Engagement - a reflection on recent initiatives in the United States and New Zealand looking at how the governments can better engage with their publics.

7 The Bio-Ethics Council also called its approach "deliberative dialogue" described as "a form of public participation that involves groups of people talking and thinking together to explore a range of possible solutions to an issue that concerns them. It is distinct from other forms of participation because its focus is on individuals exploring solutions in terms of the common best interest. Deliberative dialogue makes the assumption that no individual holds the best answer to an issue, rather, optimal solutions are found through the process of structured discussion…The deliberative dialogue process has three ideals: inclusiveness, deliberation and influence."

8 Porirua City is a dormitory city on the outskirts of Wellington. The population is 54% European, 41% Maori and Pacific; in Eastern Porirua 80% of housing is public rental and over 80% of the population is Maori and Pacific.

9 Covered in detail in Becoming deliberative - a case study of activities using a deliberative approach in Porirua City, David Robinson, Kettering Foundation, 2003.

10 That Healthlinks will provide leadership in articulating and realising "health" for the peoples of Porirua.

11 Maureen Gillon is a member of the Porirua group and wrote the notes on that project in appendix 3.

12 Iwi is the Maori term for a tribal grouping; hapu is the sub-tribe or clan.

13 George Salmond is a former Director General of Health and is also involved with the Porirua group.

14 Whanau is the Maori term for the extended family.

15 An extract on dialogue from the Bioethics Council website is attached in appendix 4.

top

Sustained Dialogue - a process for changing strained community relationships

an introduction

We would like to acknowledge the use of material from "A Public Peace Process - sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts", Harold Saunders, Palgrave, NY, 1999 and the five-stage flow chart prepared by Teddy Nemeroff, Institute for Democracy in South Africa, tnemeroff@idasa.org.za

Why sustained dialogue?

The Social and Civic Policy Institute has been working for several years to encourage the use of deliberative forms of dialogue by communities to identify critical issues and develop responses to them. We have found growing interest in going beyond deliberation to find a process that would enable communities to engage in ongoing, in-depth dialogue. Even when people interact in a deliberative manner there are underlying issues in New Zealand society that it is not possible to resolve, or even to understand adequately, in the limited time usually available. In discussion on issues such as economic development and employment opportunities underlying issues of race relations and institutionalised racism have often been raised. However, we have not had an adequate framework or suitable process to address them. A process that can help people move beyond addressing legal or constitutional issues and enable them to identify and explore underlying relationships.

This requires dialogue rather than debate, a willingness to listen to other views and commitment to ongoing dialogue.

In our work with a wide range of communities we have found that many people feel isolated from the talk through which it is possible to make sense of the world and to influence events. They do not feel that they have the ability to influence others (individuals, groups, organisations or government). It often seems that the ability to influence has moved away from ordinary people to a range of officials and professionals who claim to speak and act on our behalf.

Individuals and communities may also be concerned over how to respond to the increasing diversity in society (in terms of ethnicity, culture, religion and status) where the disconnection between decision makers and those affected by these decisions is repeated within each group and where there may be a lack of trust between groups.

The concept of sustained dialogue

In the process of sustained dialogue people repeatedly return to the discussion table over extended periods of time to build the relationships essential to democratic and economic growth and community well-being. The concept is set out in detail by Harold Saunders in his book A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts. The process has been used in cities such as Baton Rouge in the US as well as in international situations in Palestine and Tajikistan. More recently in South Africa and New Zealand a sustained dialogue process has been used in local communities while a network of sustained dialogues on race relations is active among students in a number of US universities.

Sustained dialogue focuses on relationships that may have divided a community; that may be dysfunctional because of the way they have evolved over time; relationships that may appear calm on the surface but are underpinned by destructive interactions.

The focus is on practical problems and issues of concern to participants (they are what bring people together) and simultaneously on relationships that create and block the resolution of those problems. Sustained dialogue is not a problem-solving workshop; it is a sustained interaction to change relationships both in the "dialogue room" and in the wider community. The focus is on transforming and building relationships so that people can then deal effectively with practical problems.

Because sustained dialogue focuses on relationships that divide groups, it operates within a carefully defined concept of relationships which provides both an analytical and an operational framework. Participants will not easily talk about relationships as such, but the dialogue reveals their dynamics to participants as well as to moderators. Relationship is defined in terms of five components of interaction. Identity, interests, power (the capacity of acting together to influence events), perceptions and stereotypes about others, and patterns of interaction among those involved.

The concept of relationship can be both a diagnostic and an operational tool. One can analyse a relationship in this framework, and then get inside these components in dialogue to enhance understanding or change an interaction. In dialogue identity can be explored, and a person can be humanised or seen differently as misperceptions and stereotypes give way to face-to-face pictures. Common interests can be discovered and patterns of interaction can change from confrontational to cooperative. How people relate lies at the heart of dysfunctional or productive communities.

In describing the difference between sustained dialogue and other approaches, the effort to transform destructive relationships is a continuous process that unfolds through a series of recognisable phases. This process requires not a single meeting but a flow of meetings, each one building on the preceding meetings, and what happens between meetings may be as important as what happens within them.

Sustained dialogue differs from other public policy discussions or conflict resolution approaches in that: (1) It focuses not only on issues but, principally, on the relationships that under-pin the problems and must be changed if they are to be dealt with; (2) it is a process, built on the understanding that relationships change through a progression of experiences, which can be set out in a five-stage process.

This dialogue is more structured than a good conversation or study group and less structured than a negotiation. It is designed for communities experiencing tensions and divisions that limit their ability to work together.

The five stages that sustained dialogue works through are:

  1. Deciding to Engage
  2. Mapping and Naming
  3. Exploring Problems and Relationships
  4. Scenario Building, or developing options
  5. Acting Together

These five stages are not prescriptive - they provide a framework to give a sense of direction and to check that important tasks have been carried out.

  1. Deciding to Engage - people decide to reach out to each other, or a third party might provide a space for dialogue and invite conflicting parties to come together.
  2. Mapping Relationships and Naming Problems - participants come together to map and name the elements of the problems and the relationships responsible for creating and dealing with them.
  3. Exploring Problems and Relationships - participants explore specific problems to uncover the dynamics of underlying relationships.
  4. Scenario Building - participants consider options and design a scenario to enable the community to take practical steps to change troubled relationships.
  5. Acting Together - participants develop ways to put their preferred scenario into practice.

Practical value of sustained dialogue

In considering community issues where a sustained dialogue approach could be used people may move from a specific issue to explore wider concerns such as "what kind of community do we want to live in?" or "what kind of country do we want New Zealand to be?"

This highlights the value of spending adequate time at the second stage (naming and framing) to clarify both the core nature of an issue and who needs to be involved in a particular dialogue.

In dialogue apparently clear issues may become more complex. A discussion on Treaty issues that began with ownership of resources moved to identify the issue of "belonging" in New Zealand as a critical concern; discussion with church leaders about the place of gay and lesbian Ministers led to considering the independence of individual congregations and discussion on bio-technology raised the issue of how we treat risk. Whether the initial issue or those that emerge during this stage are in reality the most critical can only be resolved in the "dialogue room"; what is important is that the breadth of the discussion is not pre-determined and limited. From our discussions in New Zealand the following points have been raised in support of taking a sustained dialogue approach.

  1. An educational approach is not enough — i.e. simply providing more external information about difficult issues without allowing the opportunity to also explore people's "internal" knowledge of their own situation and experiences is unlikely to lead to improved relationships.
  2. The value of having a parallel process to formal government procedures — not one that is in conflict with government, but one that has its own time-line and pathway that is independent of government direction; that may in some cases sit alongside formal procedures and interact with them.
  3. The action of citizens outside of government provides recognition of our right to act; citizens' ability to give themselves permissions to talk without government authorisation.
  4. The importance of moving beyond time constraints — the sustained dialogue process is open-ended in terms both of time and outcome.
  5. The value of having a systematic process with substance to guide participants through a dialogue.
  6. The importance of ongoing connections and communication beyond the dialogue room as it proceeds.
  7. Going beyond a legal solution to issues, which requires a personal investment of energy; this is critical with difficult issues that cannot simply be passed over the government or the courts to deal with on our behalf.

The Social and Civic Policy Institute has supported community groups engaged in various forms of dialogue including the participation of Pacific people in economic development, youth issues and mental health consumers involvement in service planning. SCPI is working with migrant and refugee groups in Auckland and Wellington to identify issues and develop a dialogue process with members of the host communities in the localities where they live.

SCPI has a core group of practitioners who are available to assist communities develop a sustained dialogue approach to issues of concern.

Flowchart of Sustained Dialogue Stages

Sustained Dialogue Stages

Flowchart prepared by Teddy Nemeroff tnemeroff@idasa.org.za

For more information, contact David Robinson at davidjrobinson@xtra.co.nz

top

Community Dialogue Forums

SCPI has been developing the use of a deliberative approach by communities to identify critical issues and develop responses to them. There has been growing interest in moving to a process that enables communities to engage in ongoing, in-depth discussion. This requires dialogue rather than debate, a willingness to listen to other views, and commitment to an ongoing dialogue. We have found that an educational approach on its own is not sufficient; simply providing information about difficult issues without allowing the opportunity for people to share knowledge of their own situation and experiences is unlikely to lead to improved relationships. Going beyond a legal solution to issues requires a personal investment of energy.

We are developing community forums in Auckland, Hamilton and Wellington exploring issues relating to 'living with diversity in New Zealand'. These are structured to be open to interested and concerned citizens from all backgrounds.

Participants are encouraged to share their opinions and feelings in a safe and welcoming environment, yet not without having their views challenged. These forums are deliberative, where people are encouraged to weigh the pros and cons of their views and to understand the views of others.

The dialogue training workshops and forums are moderated by moderators skilled in leading people to consider their own views and those of others more deeply.

Support will be available to enable those who are interested to continue the discussions begun at the forums in an ongoing community dialogue.

The community dialogues provide an opportunity for people to understand the opinions of others better and for all parties to understand better why people hold their views. This increased understanding is crucial to building community cohesion.

top

International Connections

Kettering Foundation

During the last five years SCPI has sent ten people to training workshops in Dayton, Ohio, organised by the Kettering Foundation and the National Issues Forum. They have each participated in two week-long training courses in Dayton inconsecutive years.

In addition Sue Driver, Tu Williams, Louis Smith, and Richard Davis have held six-month fellowships with the Kettering Foundation.

International Institute for Sustained Dialogue

Hal Saunders, International Director of the Kettering Foundation and President of the International Institute for Sustained Dialogue has visited New Zealand three times at the invitation of SCPI. These visits have included meetings with Ministers, members of the Human Rights Commission, academics, church leaders and running training courses and workshops in Wellington, Porirua, Manukau City and Auckland.

Institute for Democracy in South Africa

SCPI also sponsored the visit to New Zealand by Teddy Nemeroff, from IDASA, the Institute for Democracy in South Africa, in 2005. Teddy ran workshops and spoke about his experience in developing sustained dialogue in the USA, South Africa and Zimbabwe at meetings in Wellington, Opotiki, Auckland, and Manukau City.

Copyright Social and Civic Policy Institute
© 1997-2010. All Rights Reserved.		 design:
well-connected.net