Results of the 2002NCDD Conference Survey

Results of the 2002NCDD Conference Survey

In order to create some clarity about what ways dialogue practitioners could really benefit from such a national conference on dialogue and deliberation - and whether or not there is a demand for such a gathering, we designed a needs assessment, and invited dialogue facilitators, organizers, researchers and students to complete an online survey.

115 people from throughout the dialogue community honored us by completing the survey, and the results are both interesting and informative. We welcome you to utilize the survey information, and we look forward to more informed planning as a result of this survey.

- The Coalition for a National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation

Reena Bernards, The Dialogue Project

Laurie Bezold, Fusion Partnerships, Inc.

David Campt, Hope in the Cities

Karen Ettinger, MultiCultural ResourceCenter of Portland

Lindsey Godwin, GeorgeMasonUniversity’s Dispute Resolution Project

Chip Hauss, Search for Common Ground USA

Sandy Heierbacher, Dialogue to Action Initiative

Maggie Herzig, Public Conversations Project

Michele Woods Jones, Citizens' Unity Commission

Jen Murphy, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at GeorgeMasonUniversity

Vivian Paige, Norfolk United Facing Race

Maggie Potapchuk, NABRE (Network of Alliances Bridging Race & Ethnicity)

Randy Ross, New Jersey Office of Bias Crime and Community Relations

David Schoem, University of Michigan

Jim Snow, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at GeorgeMasonUniversity

Niki Toussaint, Oregon Uniting

Toni Tucker, Dayton Dialogue on Race Relations

Melissa Wade, StudyCirclesResourceCenter / Congressional Exchange

Mike Wenger, NABRE (Network of Alliances Bridging Race & Ethnicity)

Cricket White, Hope in the Cities

Interest in a Dialogue Conference

When asked if they would be interested in attending a gathering of leaders and practitioners of intergroup dialogue in or near Washington, D.C., 57% of the 115 respondents said ‘Yes.’ 41% stated that their attendance would depend on a variety of factors, with timing of the event, affordability, and relevance of content being mentioned most often. Other factors included the goals or purpose, length, caliber and location of the event, the availability of financial assistance, unforeseen world and national events, and the mix of practitioners and other participants.

Types or Mixture of Formats

Respondents were asked ‘What types or mixture of formats would most suit your goals?’ and were given the following 6 options. The number on the left signifies the number of respondents who selected that format.

50Sample small-group dialogues utilizing various models and topics.

50Participatory workshops in which one to three people lead a group of about 20.

46Small discussion groups focusing on topics of interest to you.

35Structured networking events which allow you to ‘meet and greet’ many of the other participants.

34"Open Space" format, where programs (workshops, discussion groups, etc.) are created on the spot, depending on participants’ interests and needs.

29Panels of speakers who are experts in the dialogue field.

A few of the comments people offered in the space for suggestions for additional formats were:

I'm most interested in formats allowing me to get to know people involved with dialogue.

Provide opportunities to network, share what's working, new trends, increase competency in the field.

Participatory workshops that recognize the level of inexperience or expertise of the participants (organized to accommodate all levels).

I think opportunities to share learnings, best practices, network, sustain our energy and dialogue would be super!

Beyond networking, I would like to get some understanding of the big picture. I always am involved in small groups and have little feel for how much things are actually changing in this country/world.

Doing dialogue and exploring the possibilities of the dialogic methodologies -- whatever the format.

Sharing stories from the field where practitioners would relate a real story of working in a dialogue setting to stimulate discussion among practitioners.

Desired Outcomes of the Event

Respondents were asked to indicate whether certain possible outcomes of the event were very important to them, somewhat important, or not important. The outcomes are listed below in order of their importance to our respondents.

Learning about what’s new in the field (new strategies and methods, new organizations, new research, etc.).

Very important to 78% of respondents.

Learning about other dialogue methods.

Very important to 73% of respondents.

Strategizing and beginning to work with other dialogue leaders to solve common problems and promote dialogue—both regionally and nationally.

Very important to 62% of respondents.

Networking with others in the dialogue field.

Very important to 61% of respondents.

Learning about proven strategies for problems you've experienced.

Very important to 57% of respondents (somewhat important to 32%).

Improving your skills as a facilitator.

Very important to 54% of respondents (somewhat important to 32%).

Improving your skills as a dialogue organizer.

Very important to 51% of respondents (somewhat important to 35%).

Being energized and motivated to continue your work and expand on it.

Very important to 38% of respondents (somewhat important to 38%).

Sharing your own strategies and experiences with others in the dialogue community.

Somewhat important to 55% of respondents (very important to 27%).

Working to make the dialogue community more cohesive by developing a national network of practitioners.

Somewhat important to 47% of respondents (very important to 33%).

Meeting and becoming acquainted with the top leaders in the dialogue community.

Somewhat important to 44% of respondents (very important to 35%).

Feeling as if you are a part of an actual ‘community’ or ‘field’—or even a ‘movement.’

Somewhat important to 38% of respondents (very important to 32%).

Gaining recognition in the dialogue community.

Somewhat important to 50% of respondents (not important to 38%).

Types of Dialogue

Respondents were asked ‘What types of dialogues would you be most interested in learning more about?’ The numbers on the left refer to the number of people who selected the corresponding option.

51Dialogue on Race/Ethnicity/Racism

31Dialogue on the current crisis (Sept. 11 and ‘war on terrorism’)

31Dialogue among groups that are currently in conflict

29Interreligious Dialogue

24Dialogue on controversial issues such as abortion, gun control, same-sex unions, etc.

24Dialogue on youth issues (education reform, violence in schools, etc.)

23Israeli/Palestinian dialogue

Workshops

We asked respondents, if they were to put a title on a workshop/discussion they would sign up for immediately, what would it be? The responses to this question illustrate the diversity of needs and interests that exists for dialogue practitioners. They also show, however, that there are some very common interests and needs that could be addressed at a gathering for dialogue leaders. Responses were grouped into the following categories, which are listed in order of the frequency they were mentioned by our respondents.

Organizing Dialogues and Moving from Talk to Community Action

Sharing, Comparing & Networking

Handling Problems or Challenges

Addressing Issues in the Dialogue Community

Dialogue Basics

Specific Tools & Approaches

Organizing Dialogues and Moving from Talk to Community Action

The two most common workshop titles related to moving dialogue programs from talk to action and strategies for organizing dialogues. Respondents wanted information on how to organize dialogues for the following reasons (in order of times mentioned): citizen involvement, conflict resolution, community action/change, relationship/trust building, community building, to inform/influence policymakers, for innovation or idea-generating, for organizational development (OD), individual growth and restorative justice.

Respondents were interested in learning new strategies for organizing dialogues about a variety of different topics. Race and racism, gender issues, environmental issues, September 11, and religious conflict were the 5 topics that were mentioned most frequently. Other issues ranged from colonialism and imperialism to poverty and class issues and police/community relations.

Some respondents also specified what groups of people they were interested in involving in a dialogue group. The most common intergroup dialogues mentioned include Israelis and Palestinians and other religious groups, or citizens and policymakers. Other dialogues specified were intragroup dialogues involving African Americans, gay men, and immigrant communities; and intergroup dialogues involving fundamentalists and pluralists, Blacks and Jews, and conflicting ethnic groups.

The environments in which dialogues are held was also specified by a number of participants. Respondents were interested in strategies for organizing dialogues on campuses, in communities, in classrooms, in rural areas and in businesses.

Sharing, Comparing & Networking

Many of our respondents expressed a need for opportunities to network and share information and experiences with their peers. The desire to share experiences facilitating and organizing dialogues was mentioned most often, followed by the need to compare various models of and approaches to dialogue.

Other dialogue practitioners are interested in sharing information and ideas, learning about other dialogue models (and sharing their own), and networking with people who do similar work in other communities.

Handling Problems or Challenges

Many respondents feel that a dialogue conference could help them handle or respond to specific challenges they face and problems they have. Most of all, these respondents want to attend workshops that help them improve their facilitation skills. Specifically, people are interested in advanced skills training for facilitators and tips for handling common issues and challenges that facilitators face. One respondent suggested the conference provide a venue for getting feedback on one’s facilitation style.

Other challenges that our respondents frequently wanted to address were:

-handling power imbalances within dialogue groups

-sustaining dialogue efforts

-building trust among conflicting groups

-marketing and working with the media

-getting more people involved in dialogues (including youth, and not just ‘the choir’)

Some respondents also expressed the need for tips on:

-dealing with resistance in race dialogue groups

-living dialogue in the real world

-creating an environment within communities to foster dialogue

-managing advocacy among dialogue participants

Addressing Issues in the Dialogue Community

Respondents recognized that in order for the dialogue process to continue to develop in effectiveness and increase in popularity and use, a number of topics should be addressed at a dialogue conference.

Workshops which would update dialogue leaders on new research, trends and strategies in their field were most frequently mentioned. The future of dialogue practice was also a common concern, with respondents showing a desire to examine what’s next for the dialogue process and work towards creating a plan of action for the future of dialogue.

Respondents also want to learn about the career opportunities and career paths that currently exist in dialogue work. They are also interested in leadership in the dialogue movement: who are and have been the leaders in the field, and what can be done to cultivate new leaders?

Other issues respondents wanted to see addressed in workshops are:

-Inter-organizational and practitioner collaboration and communication within the dialogue community

-Evaluating dialogue programs

-Creating a common language in the field

-Determining standard qualifications for facilitators

-Dialogue as form of group learning/innovation vs. problem-driven dialogue

Dialogue Basics

Respondents were interested in attending workshops on the potential impact of dialogue in our communities – and in our world. They wanted to explore what dialogue can accomplish, what the various uses and applications are for dialogue, and how, why and under what circumstances is dialogue effective.

Specific Tools & Approaches

Dialogue leaders are interested in learning about the strategies, uses and drawbacks of online dialogue, and learning more about re-evaluation counseling (or co-counseling), consensus decision-making, conflict mapping and art-based dialogue.

Some Examples of Suggested Workshop Titles

Here is a sampling of some of the many excellent suggestions we received for workshop titles:

Power and authority: How to have a meaningful dialogue in the face of real power imbalances

Techniques to engage more and more communities in dialogue to solve local programs

The future of dialogue: Where are we headed, and how will we get there?

What can interracial dialogue leaders and Israeli-Palestinian (or Muslim-Jewish) dialogue leaders learn from each other?

Fostering collaboration and communication within the dialogue field

Racial dialogue: overcoming the boundaries of American society

Connecting dialogue to policy: When and how to involve policy-makers

Youth on the vanguard: Leadership in the dialogue movement

Evaluation: How do you know when your dialogue project is succeeding?

Respondents were also asked what kinds workshops or discussions they would be willing to lead, facilitate or co-facilitate. Many people listed one or two excellent titles. Here is just a sampling of these:

Teaching Dialogue: Skills and TheoryBuilding in the University Setting

Demonstration Dialogue: Reaching Out to the Wider Community

Information Technology and Dialogue

Getting to Know Your Facilitator Self

Creating and Sustaining a National Dialogue Field: What will it take?

Deliberative Discourse and Organizational/Community Learning

Framing Issues for Public Deliberation

The Role of Dialogue in the Peacebuilding Process: An Exploration of the Ways Dialogue can be Linked with Other Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding Processes

Incorporating Art into Dialogue and Bridgework

Infusing Dialogues on Race into Public School Curricula

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Intergroup Dialogues

How to Use the Media as a Sounding Board to Frame Issues, Report Progress, and Reach a Wider Audience

Working with Public Interest Law Firms to Move from Talk to Action and Accountability

Democracy in Real Time: Involving Non-English Speakers in the Discourse on Community Life

Motivating Youth to Civic Engagement Through Authentic Roles in Their Communities

Dialogue as a Civic Engagement Tool

The Current Crisis - How Can Structured Dialogue Support a Peace Process?

Using Dialogue in Teacher Training

The Life-Cycle of a Dialogue Group (Stages of Dialogue)

Changing the Way We talk: Using Dialogue in Policy Decisions

Is there Tension between Dialogue and Community Organizing?

Exploring Models for Dialogue

Bookalogues: Building Shared Insight Through Dialogue About Books

Presenters & Speakers

Respondents were asked if there is a practitioner, trainer or speaker they would especially like to have offer a workshop or session. They were asked to name the person and specify what they would prefer the focus or learning goal would be at the session. (Some respondents didn’t specify a focus.)

Interestingly, only four people were mentioned more than once, out of a total of 37 speakers (plus 6 organizations) our respondents expressed interest in. The fact that speakers were rarely mentioned twice, coupled with the assortment of speakers that were suggested, outlines the diversity of interests, experiences, and professional backgrounds of dialogue practitioners.

The four people who were mentioned more than once are:

-Harold Saunders of the Kettering Foundation, author of A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial & Ethnic Conflicts (mentioned three times).

-Glenna Gerard, Co-Founder of the Dialogue Group and co-author of Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation (mentioned twice).

-William Isaacs, author of Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together (mentioned twice).

-John Paul Lederach, founding Director of Eastern Mennonite University’s Conflict Transformation Program (mentioned twice).

The other 33 potential session facilitators that were mentioned are:

Valerie Batts, Executive Director of VISIONS, Inc. (topic: recognizing, understanding, appreciating differences)

Ruby Beale, University of Michigan professor (topic: social psychological implications of dialogue)

Reena Bernards, The Dialogue Project

Cherie Brown, Director of the National Coalition Building Institute

Dr. Yolanda Burwell, Associate Professor, EastCarolinaUniversity

David Campt, former policy analyst with the President Clinton’s Initiative on Race (topic: comparative approaches to dialogue)

Laura Chasin, Director of the Public Conversations Project

Aleco Christakis of CogniScope (topic: interactive management)

Dr. Joy DeGruy Leary, Professor, PortlandStateUniversity

Louise Diamond of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy

Ron Fisher, Professor of Conflict Analysis and Management at Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada

Joe Folger (topic: the transformative powers of mediation/facilitation)

Paula Green, Director of the KarunaCenter for Peacebuilding

Sandy Heierbacher, Director of the Dialogue to Action Initiative (topic: talk and action issues)

Lenise Jackson-Gaertner, Founder of Mothers for Race Unity and Equality

John Landesman, StudyCirclesResourceCenter

Victor Lee Lewis, Director of the Center for Diversity Leadership

Martha McCoy, Director of the StudyCirclesResourceCenter (topic: creating an organization with staying power)

Lee Mun Wah, producer of the video The Color of Fear

Dr. Sandra Postel, Director of the Global Water Policy Project (topic: water as a cause of conflict)

Randy Ross, New Jersey Office of Bias Crime and Community Relations

Walter Ruby, Long Island Jewish World journalist

David Schoem, University of Michigan (topic: the evolution of the UM’s Program on Intergroup Relations)

Randa Slim, Kettering Foundation

Larry Susskind, President, Consensus Building Institute (topic: assisted negotiation)

Dr. David Suzuki of the David Suzuki Foundation (topic: environment as cause of conflict)

Richard Tagle, Public Education Network (topic: dialogue as a tool for public engagement)

Beverly Daniel Tatum, Professor and Dean at MountHolyokeCollege (topic: discussing race issues in the classroom)

Libby & Len Traubman, San Francisco Bay Area Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group (topic: how to hold Jewish/Palestinian dialogue groups and get broad-based support)

William Van den Heuvel (topic: Bohm Dialogue Concepts in Practice)

Cricket White of Hope in the Cities

Dr John Woodall, professor at HarvardMedicalSchool

Ximena Zuniga, professor at University of Massachusetts (topic: facilitation skills)

The following organizations were also mentioned, without a speaker specified:

CDR Associates

Hope in the Cities