Intercultural dialogue in complex multicultural communities Serge Loode Associate Lecturer, School of Political Science and International Studies (POLSIS) The University of Queensland
Keywords Dialogue, intercultural, action research, communication skills, facilitation, community
Introduction 1 "Dialogue is a process of genuine interaction through which human beings listen to each other deeply enough to be changed by what they learn. No participant gives up her or his identity but each recognises enough of each other’s valid human claims that he or she will act 2 differently toward the other." This paper provides insight into a community dialogue action research project, which the author conducted in Brisbane in 2011 and 2012 with participants from Aboriginal, Hazara Afghani, Kenyan, Mozambican, Anglo-Australian, Ethiopian, South Sudanese, Rohingyan, and white Zimbabwean backgrounds. The aim of the research was to examine how people from diverse cultural backgrounds and world views jointly develop peaceful ways of interpersonal interaction through dialogue and how the ideas and social habits thus developed spread through the wider community. Instead of providing an extensive overview of the research methodology and the findings of the dialogical inquiry I will focus on the practical elements of the process and discuss the similarities and differences between dialogue facilitation and facilitative mediation practice. Dialogue processes are not driven by a problem-solving framework, instead they encourage participants to share stories and experiences and gain insights into each other’s world views. Mediation skills such as active listening, summarising and control of interaction help to establish a safe space where this exchange of experience can take place. Narrative inquiry techniques can help uncover the origins of conflict stories and social discourses which impact on perceptions of community. The paper embeds this discussion into the context of complex social change processes in communities and refers to complex systems theory. Because of the complexity of the action research it is only possible to provide a very abbreviated description of the research process in such a short paper. This necessarily has to leave out important dynamics, theory and insights. Dialogical inquiry can help changing discourses to encourage conflict resolution and relationship building in culturally diverse societies. The dialogue group aimed to answer the questions of which dynamics create barriers between different ethnic and cultural communities and how these barriers can be overcome. The actions taken by the group as part of the action research process have actively strengthened intercultural community connections in Brisbane.
Complex communities and systemic action research It is problematic to define what ‘community’ is and the community development literature provides a plethora of divergent definitions and descriptions. Ife and Tesoriero identify human scale, identity and belonging, obligations, gemeinschaft (in Tönnies’ sense) and culture as parameters to describe 3 community. Communities can also be differentiated in geographical and functional ways. Alison Gilchrist points to the complexity of community environments characterised by interpersonal connections, fluid networks and small-scale, self-help groups and organisations. Community becomes
1
The author would like to thank all members of the CDD Community Dialogue Group in Brisbane for their commitment and participation in the dialogical inquiry that this paper is based on. The research described is part of the author’s PhD research in the School of Social Work and Human Services at the University of Queensland. 2 Harold H. Saunders, A public peace process : sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts (1st paperback ed, 2001). 3 J. W. Ife and Frank Tesoriero, Community development : community-based alternatives in an age of globalisation (3rd ed, 2006).
an experience or capacity that emerges as a result of the interactions within a complex web of 4 overlapping networks. Gilchrist’s post-modern understanding of community fits the criteria of a “complex social system”, as 5 described by Keith Sawyer. As such, communities are made up of many components that interact in densely connected networks; global system functions cannot be localised to any one subset of individuals or groups but rather are distributed throughout the entire system; the overall system cannot be decomposed into sub-systems and these into smaller sub-subsystems in any meaningful fashion; and the components (i.e. individuals) interact using complex and sophisticated language. Multiple feedback loops of communications produce a shared system of beliefs, explanations and values among a group of people, which gives them identities and creates flexible boundaries between their 6 group and others delineated by expectation and self-identification. The research participants involved in the dialogical inquiry group provide a good example of this concept: one participant is an Aboriginal elder in her sixties from the Logan area. She did not know her cultural background until she was well into her forties, was married to a white British migrant, and is now a member of a number of Aboriginal advisory councils. She regularly performs a Welcome to Country ceremony for a Chamber of Commerce and is acquainted with senior federal and local politicians. She is also a speaker for Breast Cancer Network Australia. All these overlapping networks and groups both influence her views on multiculturalism and community connections, and provide her with avenues to take influence herself. Another participant was a Rohingyan refugee in his twenties. He had spent 18 years in a refugee camp in Bangladesh and settled in Brisbane in 2009. He is an active leader in his community, works for a settlement service provider and is politically active to advocate for the recognition of the rights of Rohingyan people in Burma and overseas. Because of the complex patchwork of relationships and influence groups that participants were part of, a systemic approach to action research was used. Systemic action researchers start by constructing “a working picture of the multiple systems that we inhabit, from both within and outside them, and then identify opportunities to act within these 7 systems”. This is often done through the use of dialogical inquiry groups like the one described in this paper. The group consisted of a total of 15 members who met 19 times between April and November 2011. On average four to six people attended the meetings and the starting group of eight participants actively recruited other members during the dialogical inquiry. The dialogical inquiry was facilitated 8 using a process I have named Creative Dialogue & Design (CDD). It is known in the literature as Interactive Management (IM) and was developed by Prof. John N. Warfield at George Mason University. CDD/IM is a well-documented and researched computer-assisted group facilitation 9 process. During the workshop phase of the CDD process the facilitator guides the participants through a dialogue and design process which is flexible and is based on three distinctive stages: • •
4
Stage one concentrates on developing greater understanding of the problems as perceived by the group’s members; stage two assists in formulating a group vision by articulating goals the group members want to reach; and
Alison Gilchrist, The well-connected community : a networking approach to community development (2004). R. Keith Sawyer, Social emergence : societies as complex systems (2005). 6 Fritjof Capra, The hidden connections : integrating the biological, cognitive, and social dimensions of life into a science of sustainability (1st ed, 2002). 7 Danny Burns, Systemic action research: a strategy for whole system change (2007). 8 The name Creative Dialogue & Design (CDD) was developed by my colleague Dr Polly O. Walker with whom I facilitated a number of CDD sessions. Participants often found the name Interactive Management too technical and asked us for a different name which also refers to dialogue as part of the process. 9 Benjamin J. Broome, 'Designing a collective approach to peace: interactive design and problem-solving workshops with Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities in Cyprus' (1997) 2 International Negotiation 381; Benjamin J. Broome, 'Collective design of the future: structural analysis of tribal vision statements' (1995) 19(2) American Indian Quarterly 205; Benjamin J. Broome and Alexander N. Christakis, 'A culturally sensitive approach to tribal governance issue management' (1988) 12 International Journal of Intercultural Relations 107; Benjamin J. Broome and A. Jakobsson Hatay, 'Building peace in divided societies: the role of intergroup dialogue' in John Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey (eds), Handbook of Conflict Communication (2006) 627; John N. Warfield, Societal systems : planning, policy, and complexity (1976); John N. Warfield and A. Roxana Cardenas, A handbook of interactive management (1993, 2002). 5
•
stage three allows for prioritisation of projects to ensure that resources are expended where they can have the greatest effect.
Stage one and two both start with the use of Nominal Group Technique (NGT) to maximise participant 10 control and input. In this process a ‘triggering question’ is presented to participants. Each participant, working alone, generates as many ideas to answer this question. The facilitator records these ideas on paper and enters them into the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) computer software. The paper is posted on the wall. Participants then discuss the ideas to clarify their meaning and finally vote 11 to select the most important ideas. The software input allows the written recording of the dialogue session as part of the facilitation. It also slows down the conversation and allows for an immediate acknowledgment of what participants say, when they see their words entered into the software on the 12 screen. In the next step, the ISM software is used to clarify relationships among the ideas generated from the voting. For example, during the problem-mapping stage the group used the relational 13 question “Does barrier A significantly aggravate barrier B?” Discussing this question and answering it by consensus decision helped the group build a visual map, or ‘problematique’, which displayed the relationships. This visual reference map and the record of the dialogue session were then used for further dialogue and reflection. The group discussed the following two triggering questions and developed influence maps with the answers: 1. What significant barriers hinder our communities from building better relationships with each other? 2. What goals do we need to achieve as a group to build a better Brisbane community? During and after the discussion about these questions the group developed a number of action plans on how to achieve its goal to build better connections between communities. These action plans 14 included developing a report of the CDD process and sharing it with government and service providers, organising large-group dialogues which bring different communities together and working with schools to connect young people and elders to engage school-based conflict and stereotyping more constructively. Facilitating the group interaction during the CDD sessions required a number of interpersonal communication skills which are similar to the skills used in facilitative mediation. The overall framework of the problem-mapping, vision-mapping and action planning also bears similarities to the stages of the facilitative mediation process, “in which the participants, with the support of a mediator, identify issues, develop options, consider alternatives and make decisions about future 15 actions and outcomes.” These similarities and differences will be further explored in the next section.
Reflections on the difference between dialogue and mediation Saunders posits that sustained dialogue is different from formal mediation or negotiation. It focuses on 16 the dynamics of underlying relationships that cause divisive problems and not just on the problems. Ramsbotham et al. consider dialogue a “repeated process of reciprocal translation which eventually forges a common meaning and establishes the basis for a new community, which is not equal of the world of either participant in the dialogue but a transformation of the fundamental relationship of the 17 participants.” One of the clear differences between dialogue and most forms of mediation and negotiation is the goal of the conversation: dialogue does not aim to produce a particular agreement or negotiated contract. The aim is a changed relationship or better understanding of a complex situation
10
Benjamin J. Broome, 'Collective design of the future: structural analysis of tribal vision statements' (1995) 19(2) American Indian Quarterly 205; Mary Brydon-Miller, 'Ethics and action research: deepening our commitment to principles of social justice and redefining systems of democratic practice' in Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury (eds), The Sage handbook of action research : participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed, 2008) 199. 11 Benjamin J. Broome, 'Collective design of the future: structural analysis of tribal vision statements' (1995) 19(2) American Indian Quarterly 205. 12 See figure 1 at the end of this paper for an example of the participant statement entered to clarify a problem idea. 13 See figure 2 at the end of this paper for an example of a relational question. 14 The report is available by emailing the author at
[email protected]. It also contains diagrams of the influence maps and the stories and experiences captured during the dialogue. Due to space limitation it was not included in this paper. 15 Mediator Standards Board, 'Practice Standards' (2012) National Mediator Accreditation Standards 16 Harold H. Saunders, A public peace process : sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts (1st paperback ed, 2001). 17 Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse and Hugh Miall, Contemporary conflict resolution : the prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts (2nd ed, 2005).
18
with different views and dimensions. This makes dialogue uniquely suited for dealing with complex problems and multi-dimensional situations where there are no clear right or wrong answers. It also takes the pressure off dialogue participants to some degree, in that there is less incentive to try to persuade the other side to accept a particular view. While it needs to be acknowledged that dialogue participants sometimes still attempt to persuade and to defend their views, it is less prevalent than in mediation and negotiation processes that I have been involved in as a facilitator. Dialogue also is not necessarily a response to a particular event or grievance (although it can be, as seen in a number of 19 public dialogue projects facilitated to deal with particular acts of racial or other violence ). Unlike restorative justice conferences, dialogue does not necessarily aim to work through a particular incident, but can deal with a number of incidents and traumatic experiences that have happened to participants over a long period of time. This is different from trying to repair specific harm done to individuals. Saunders suggests that negotiation and mediation often deal with distributive situations in which 20 goods or rights can be divided, shared or defined in tangible ways. While this statement is clearly directed at distributive negotiation and settlement focused mediation processes it does not necessarily 21 22 apply to contemporary facilitative mediation and integrative negotiation as practiced in a variety of settings in Australia. On the contrary, I have found in my research, that there are many similarities between contemporary mediation practice and dialogue facilitation. These relate to the overall structure of the process as well as to the micro-skills used for facilitating the conversation. The dialogue structure in the CDD process focused on bringing out different experiences and personal stories of conflicts and problems associated with barriers between communities. I elicited the ideas and stories by asking participants to individually respond to the triggering questions and by pooling 23 ideas through brainstorming in a round-robin style. Sometimes I used reframing skills to assist participants to focus their ideas into brief statements. In the next phase, participants each clarified their statements by telling each other the stories and experiences that made them think of the particular problem or goal. The idea collection and clarification stages of the process bear many similarities to the exploration stages of mediation in which mediators listen to the opening statements 24 of parties, summarise them and distill an agenda which is then explored. Using the round-robin facilitation method to collect ideas ensured that participants were invited to speak relatively early and could voice their most important concerns. The clarification stage allowed them to tell others about their views without interruption. After the initial story was told I asked other participants to clarify any questions they had and to sometimes contrast the story told with their own story. Summarising was done by entering the statements made into the ISM computer software and by displaying the statements on a data projector screen. Everyone could see what was typed into the software and could correct any misunderstanding. When they saw their concerns expressed in the list generated by the software, it elicited the same powerful response of being acknowledged that parties in mediations have reported. The difference to traditional mediation with regards to summarising, reframing and agenda creation was that participants took more control of this process. On many occasions participants took turns to type the statements into the software and asked each other clarifying questions without much prompting from me as the facilitator. In facilitative mediation, summarising and distilling of information is often left much more to the mediator who is in charge of this process. In some mediations this may be necessary because of the reactive nature of mediation and the often higher levels of anger, fear or discomfort in the participants. The order of problems to be discussed was determined by the original round-robin brainstorming and the hierarchical structure of the computer software. Because everyone could see the full list of problems to work through, no one felt that their issues would not be heard. It also prevented the dilemma that some mediators face when determining which item to start with after 25 an agenda has been set with the parties. There is enough flexibility in the software to jump between different items and to go backwards and forwards. 18
Harold H. Saunders, A public peace process : sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts (1st paperback ed, 2001). 19 W. Barnett Pearce and Stephen W. Littlejohn, Moral conflict : when social worlds collide (1997). 20 Harold H. Saunders, A public peace process : sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts (1st paperback ed, 2001). 21 Tania Sourdin, Alternative dispute resolution (4th ed, 2012). 22 Roy J. Lewicki, Bruce Barry and David M. Saunders, Negotiation (6th ed, 2010). 23 Laurence Boulle, Mediation : skills and techniques, Butterworths skills series. (2001). 24 Mieke Brandon and Leigh Robertson, Conflict and dispute resolution : a guide for practice (2007). 25 Ruth Charlton and Micheline S. Dewdney, The mediator's handbook : skills and strategies for practitioners (2nd ed, 2004).
There are also similarities with regards to the micro-skills of conflict resolution: active listening, reflecting emotions, summarising, reframing and questioning. The ability to listen for underlying interests, needs and values that many mediators cultivate through their practice is also essential for dialogue facilitation. Similar to facilitative and transformative approaches to mediation, it is important to reflect emotions and to summarise statements to ensure that participants feel heard and that other participants listen to them with full attention. Repeating statements and powerful phrases in 26 summaries in the facilitator’s words “rescues” these statements from being dismissed by other participants and focuses the conversation on them. I often used narrative questioning skills to elicit 27 recollections of actual experiences of participants. The following questions were particularly useful: • • •
What is your personal experience with…? Did something happen to you that you could share here? Where did you learn about your understanding of…? Did someone tell you about it? How are other members of your community thinking about this issue? Are your views shared by others or do they have different views?
These questions sometimes led to powerful responses. One participant, for example, spoke about her appreciation for supporting refugees and asylum seekers but was critical of “boat people” and “illegal immigrants”. The participant expressed that her views mainly came from stories read in the media and told by other community members. I invited a different member of the dialogue group to speak to that. He had come to Australia as an illegal immigrant and had spent three years in immigration detention on Christmas Island and Nauru. He explained why he had taken this dangerous route and shared experiences of persecution, death threats and the inability of getting a legal passport in his country of origin. He made it clear that paying a people smuggler seemed to be the only way to escape his terrible circumstances at the time. The telling of this story provoked an immediate and powerful response from the first participant who broke into tears and expressed that she would never think of “boat people” as not worthy of support anymore. In addition to this, the dialogue experience provided an opportunity for the two participants to become friends, expressed in their heartfelt greetings every time they see each other. The dialogue I facilitated differed from my mediation practice in a significant way. This was related to issues of self-disclosure and neutrality. During the dialogue I was asked a number of times by the participants about my own story and view. Roles changed and I became a participant (for a limited time) while other participants became the facilitators. During a discussion about the lack of recognition of foreign educational and practical qualifications in Australia I was asked about my own background as a lawyer from Germany. I explained about the differences in legal systems and the difficulty in acquiring a legal practice certificate in Australia for foreign legal practitioners. These stories, deeply tied to my own background as a migrant, found their way into the dialogical conversation. In some way they may have even shaped the thinking of the participants, given that I was considered to be the “knowledgeable conflict resolution expert” by some of the participants. It is sometimes claimed that 28 neutrality is an ethical requirement and practical consequence of a mediator’s role as a third party. However I did not detect any negative influence on decision-making, the way the conversation emerged or the ability of participants to have input into the dialogue. The experience from this research project may support the view of Hilary Astor that issues of neutrality may become less 29 important in light of increased process control given to the parties.
Conclusion This paper has described the facilitation of a dialogical inquiry group as part of an action research project investigating barriers and connections between culturally diverse communities. It has focused on the differences and similarities between dialogue facilitation and the facilitation of mediation processes. I have pointed out a number of similarities with regards to process structure and facilitation micro-skills which make mediators well suited to apply their skills and processes for more complex 26
The term “rescuing words” was introduced by David Denborough in a workshop on Collective Narrative Practice. Creating collective documents, similar to the writing down of stories and experiences in the CDD process, can rescue powerful phrases and capture them for all participants to remember. These phrases often resonate even with people who have not participated in the dialogical event. 27 John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Narrative mediation : a new approach to conflict resolution (2001). 28 Laurence Boulle, Mediation : principles, process, practice (2nd ed, 2005). 29 Hilary Astor, 'Mediator neutrality: making sense of theory and practice' (2007) 16 Social Legal Studies 221.
dialogical encounters. At the same time dialogue challenges some of the underlying assumptions of mediation about the value of problem-solving and neutral process facilitation. Dialogue also enjoys a position of freedom, in that participants do not necessarily expect dialogues to finish within three or four hours like traditional mediation. Saunders makes the argument that the sustained practice of 30 dialogue sessions is what gives the process its power and helps to change relationships. It takes 31 time to explore and change incommensurate world views and monolithic identities. This more unhurried approach to social change and conflict resolution can produce important results. The participants of the research project mentioned in this paper are still meeting, almost a year after the end of the formal dialogue sessions. They have contributed significantly to a number of large-group dialogue sessions in Brisbane and to other multicultural events and they are working towards the implementation of a number of action plans conceived during the dialogue process. Mediators are well suited to assist with such dialogue and, to say it with the words of Peter Adler, should not “forget to 32 embrace the road and all the larger possibilities that wait around” in assisting social change processes outside their traditional sphere of practice.
Figure 1: Entering a clarification story into the ISM software
30
Harold H. Saunders, A public peace process : sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts (1st paperback ed, 2001). W. Barnett Pearce and Stephen W. Littlejohn, Moral conflict : when social worlds collide (1997). 32 Peter Adler, 'The end of mediation: an unhurried ramble on why the field will fail and mediators will thrive over the next two decades' (2009) . 31
Figure 2: Relational questions are posed by the ISM software
