By Krishna Udayasankar
The fields of design and architecture have long acknowledged that the way spaces are constructed influence how people behave in them – be it cafes that give off certain “vibes”, shopping malls that stimulate impulse purchases, offices that minimize distractions and encourage focus, or even courtrooms, which are often designed to inspire awe and respect. Increasingly, attention has turned to how spatial design can be used to foster innovation and creativity.
Spatial environments, however, are more than just physical attributes – they are the sum total of attributes and the responses that are evoked in those who occupy them.
Extending this principle to the concept of “space” as a gathering of individuals or groups, of ideas and exchange of views, can these spaces be designed – not just in terms of their physical structure but more so in terms of the relationships and processes that flow through them – to foster dialogic behaviours?
We at Kshetra Foundation for Dialogue believe so, and this forms the foundation of our approach to our Convening Design and Support vertical.
The Dialogic Method
Kshetra’s work is anchored in the Dialogic Method: a framework that draws on multiple disciplines, including mediation, cognitive psychology, behavioural change and systems thinking to help varied end-users harness dialogue towards different purposes, with the goal of creating sustainable outcomes.
Focussed on core principles of value creation (as distinct from value distribution), emphasis on self-determination of participants to ensure crafting of inclusive and sustainable solutions, and harnessing the power of a non-binary approach, the Dialogic Method framework lays out steps for individuals, organisations and communities to participate in and create and hold spaces for dialogic solutioning across a spectrum of situations. (Read more on the Dialogic Method at: https://kshetra.space/dialogic-method/)
What is the DM approach to Convening?
We propose that when spaces, particularly the flow of events therein, are designed and held so as to elicit dialogic behaviours from those who occupy those spaces, the outcomes constructed as a result will create value, harness the potential of a non-binary approach and maximise the self-determination of involved stakeholder – all towards co-creating sustainable solutions.
Doing so involves a trifold approach focussed on participants, process and prep. That is, we aim to elicit dialogic behaviours (participants) in a space constructed to support the same (process), through appropriate design and curation (prep).
This approach is located in our broad premise that change is likely as a cumulative outcome of a method that involves the individual in a process of initiating and participating in group/community change, towards fostering systemic shifts. Through a process of individual agency, the intent is to generate collective capacity to effectively deal with situations – problematic and otherwise.
How does the DM approach to Convening work?
Actions are what we do. But these actions stem from what we think and feel, which can be responses to the spaces we are in – physical and attitudinal. Casinos, we have often heard, rarely have clocks or windows to inhibit the sense of passage of time. But that is not their only design element – the opulent and grand decor of most casinos is to give occupants a sense of “richness”, that makes them not only more likely to participate in the gaming experience but also to enjoy doing so.
The DM approach to convening is geared to facilitate process outcomes that provide space for self-determined decision making and commitment rather than any content or agenda-driven outcomes. That is, the gathering may result in the alignment of various stakeholders on a particular course of action, but it does not seek to shift them towards a predetermined course of action. Further, the content of the collective decision taken must emerge organically from the participants themselves, keeping in mind the different outcomes that any particular convening may be geared towards. For instance, dialogues intended towards collaborative problem-solving may result in the design of interventions. Other dialogues may be intended towards articulating shared consensus, for example, in the form of a statement or policy recommendation. Yet others may look at fostering connections, relationships and alliances between diverse groups of stakeholders. Consequently, a design (prep) that lets the solutions emerge through a co-creation process focussed on participants can result in organic, actionable and sustainable outcomes that are effective and efficient.
This, however, requires a degree of customization and co-creation of the engagement with the “convenors” of the event, while drawing on a portfolio of field-tested approaches and activities that offer desired results.
For example, we posit that a key element of creating value lies in shifting participants from “whats” to “whys” – that is, to shift them from a stated position or stances that are subject to dispute or defense, to focus on the underlying interests, motivations and needs that must be effectively addressed for them to engage in a solutioning process or come together towards a common agenda. To this end, many of our engagements involve, in the early stages, an “aspirations” activity, that seeks to nudge those gathered from their stated (and often strongly-believed) positions to uncover their motivations and interests.
During one particular engagement that involved a broad range of individuals and organisations on the topic of Minimum Support Price, we saw this approach to be particularly useful in moving stakeholders from a “solutions-first” approach to better investing in understanding the problem and associated concerns. Participants were nudged to discover and explore their own and others’ “whys” – the fundamental concern that was sought to be addressed through what each participant stated (and believed) to be the way forward on the matter. This was different from a more conventional approach to problem solving, where typically participants put forth what they believe are appropriate solutions or “whats” to the situation and debate the relative merits of the same towards a mix of disagreement and compromise.
As a result of this shift, the gathering allowed for participants to co-create new solutions that added value for all, accommodated multiple perspectives and elicited active participation and decision-making. At the same time, it built a sense of congruence, even shared purpose amongst diverse and supposedly contrarian stakeholders. This was demonstrated by the active partnerships that were proposed and built through the course of the convened event.
Another facet of the DM approach to convening that yielded results in the above gathering and also other engagements was “capturing consensus” through activities designed for the same. Capturing consensus moves away from binaries of agree and disagree towards viewing the situation as movement along a spectrum. That is, it aims to capture and communicate shifts from initial positions to the current understanding, rather than reject the convening process or its outcomes for lack of total agreement. This allows for a longer-term dialogue to emerge and supports the building of actionable and sustainable solutions as co-created outcomes.
Beyond Dialogic Spaces
Acknowledging a possible limitation of the DM approach to convening: Will individuals continue to exhibit, or even sustain previously exhibited dialogic behaviours once they have exited a designed dialogic space? What of decisions that were made in the space – do they continue to hold weight in the “real world”? We believe so, given particularly our proposition that when individual agency is harnessed through dialogue to create a collective capacity, the impact of the shift is seen both in individuals’ attitudes as well as in the communities – and even systems – that these individuals are a part of.
Dialogic behaviours, in effect, form trigger or change events in the settings that they are a part of. Actively designing spaces in which dialogic behaviours are elicited may possibly serve as the beginning of larger and more far-reaching systemic changes.