Archive for the ‘Dialogue’ Category

David Bohm Dialogues

October 23, 2008

On Dialogue

Thought as a System

Bohm Dialogue – Wikipedia

I (Google desktop) found two text files on my PC, from the nineties! (I am like that).

Bohm Dialogue Proposal
The item describes in some detail the purpose & structure of Dialogue as proposed by Bohm & colleagues.

Bohm Dialogue – book extract
An item from a newsgroup. Summarises the material on Dialogue from the book: Science, Order and Creativity 1987

~

From the Dialogue Page on the Co-Intellignece website

Guidelines for Open Dialogue

The more all participants are aware of the nature of dialogue and committed to bringing it about, the better the chance it will happen. Towards that end, the following comparison of dialogue and debate offers one of the most useful summaries of dialogue that we’ve seen. (It was adapted by the Study Circle Resource Center from a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, which in turn was based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for Social Responsibility.)

More follows, including a list of bullet points.

(more…)

Dynamic Facilitation

October 21, 2008

Here is a Manual for Dynamic Facilitation.

Report on Online Dialogues!

Jim Rough’s book:

Societys-Breakthrough-Releasing-Essential-Wisdom

~

The online manual is pretty good!

The whole manual is through, informative and while all is familiar it looks as if they have found an ordinary simple structure that could well work! Here is an excerpt from the manual,

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

WITH OTHER APPROACHES

Most approaches that are designed to help groups address practical difficulties and challenges do not utilize emergent process. Instead, they tend to rely on structured agendas, pre-determined sequences of steps, and negotiated decisions. Dynamic Facilitation takes a different approach, inviting participants to remain within a creative process where group “aha’s” can occur.

There are other approaches to group facilitation that also follow the “emergent process” of a group, such as Bohmian Dialogue and T-groups. Facilitators practicing these processes also refrain from leading the group through any set series of “steps,” and from “managing consensus” in any way. However, these approaches have not been designed for the purpose of addressing practical issues, and quite understandably do not lend themselves well to that purpose.

In Bohmian Dialogue, the main purpose of the group is to develop a deeper understanding of the nature of the thinking process. In T-groups, the purpose is to develop interpersonal understanding. In contrast, the purpose of Dynamic Facilitation is to help people discover creative and practical approaches to challenging issues. This can include anything from “How do we design a better workplace?” to “How do we address the homeless problem in our community?”

In the process of arriving in a non-directive manner at new and creative solutions, people tend to also arrive at better interpersonal understandings, and they may even have some realizations about “the nature of thought.” But while these can emerge as “added benefits”, they are not our principal focus.

While markedly different in some respects, there are other ways in which Dynamic Facilitation is very similar to the practice of Transformative Mediation (Bush and Folger, 2004). Both of these approaches have very active interventions at the micro level, designed to support each participant’s contribution. And, at the macro level, they both refrain on principle from any effort to “manage” or negotiate convergence, choosing to “follow the process,” instead of directing it.

Dynamic Facilitation also bears some strong resemblances to Dialogue Mapping, a computer-assisted version of cognitive mapping (Conklin, 2005.)

Cameron Riley interviews Richard Moore

October 20, 2008

Just listened to Cameron Riley interview Richard Moore. Excellent podcast. A credible analysis of the geo-politics and a credible practical way forward – rare. I am now checking out “dynamic facilitation” dialogue. I love the way he speaks about doing dialogues as an experiment. Reminds me of Moreno’s sociometric experiments. These are not experiments ON people. This is people experimenting together, well that is what I make of it.

The state of the art for community dialogues has a way to go I think. I can see a sort of combination of Imago, NVC, Sociometry working to facilitate such a process. Couple and small group dialogues are hard enough, dialogues for social issues may be simpler. I like the way he proposes that a small group with diverse opinions, if they find a solution, it is likely it will be broadly accepted.