Dialogue

Brief Description:

A good approach for resolving conflict and disagreements, building and improving relationships between groups with diverse opinions and involving those who are often in danger of being excluded from decision-making.

Description:

Dialogue incorporates a range of approaches designed to help participants identify common ground and mutually beneficial solutions to a problem. The process involves stakeholders in defining the problem, devising the methods and creating the solutions. Dialogue is mainly conducted through workshops and similar meetings. The minimum aim is to find a mutually acceptable compromise, but ideally the process seeks to build on common ground and reach a proactive consensus. Every Dialogue process is tailor-made to suit the situation, the people involved and to deliver the agreed outcomes.

Used For:

Conflict resolution or conflict avoidance in decision-making. Good in areas likely to be regarded as controversial or where the facts are contested.

Suitable participants:

As far as possible Dialogue involves all stakeholders, defined as people who can influence, or be impacted by the outcome. This includes decision-makers, those directly affected by decisions, and those who could support or obstruct the implementation of decisions.

In practice a Dialogue process can involve anything from a handful of people to several hundred. In general, the higher the number of participants the more limited the level of deliberation possible.

Cost:

Due to the need for independent expert facilitation and possibly numerous meetings the costs can be high. However, Dialogue remains one of the few practicable participative options once a conflict has reached a certain point.

Initiating a Dialogue at an earlier stage can save enormous effort, resources, including cost, and anxiety later.

Time Requirements:

Dialogue projects have a tendency to be most effective over a long period of time due to the slow process of building relationships and trust between groups.

When To Use / What It Can Deliver:

When to use:
� Where there is conflict;
� To proactively prevent conflict;
� To build consensus in decision-making and shared ownership of outcomes;
� When you want to build working relationships with interest groups that are normally excluded, or feel excluded, from decision-making;
� When you want to improve communication and build trust between groups;
� When a debate is required.

Can deliver:
� Improved relationships between participants;
� Consensus/shared vision;
� Increased legitimacy for decisions;
� Better implementation of jointly developed solutions;
� Creative new solutions.

When Not To Use / What It Cannot Deliver:

When not to use:
� When the stakeholders are unable to influence decisions in any significant way;
� When essential groups (e.g. key decision-makers) refuse to join;
� When time and/or money is in short supply;
� When participants need to be demographically representative.

What it cannot deliver:
� Information representative of society as a whole;
� Quick results;
� Clearly identified positions, unless this is an explicit objective of the dialogue and the process is designed to identify these.

Strengths:

� Deals well with contention and can really help with issues of low trust;
� Ensures a balanced approach to decision-making, allowing all voices to be heard;
� Is an approach that hands the control of the process over to the participants themselves;
� Develops jointly-owned and implemented solutions, often preventing the need for legal challenge or litigation at a later stage;
� Is highly flexible and can be applied at all levels of government.

Weaknesses:

� Extremely reliant on the skills of a facilitator or mediator, which can make it expensive;
� May also be time consuming;
� The need to ensure participation by all significant stakeholders can slow progress or even render it impossible;
� Ensuring communication between the stakeholder representatives and their constituencies is challenging.

In using Dialogue to achieve consensus, there is a risk that organisational and individual positions may not be explicitly acknowledged. The final outputs may only highlight areas of agreement and not capture other parts of the picture. This is particularly problematic for campaigning organisations for which positions are important.

Origin:

Conflict Resolution

Evolved from conflict resolution and mediation approaches in the US and UK.

Commonly used in environmental decision-making, with growing use in other areas.

Case Studies:

Related Methods

Restrictions In Use

Further Information

Contact: The Environment Council
212 High Holborn
London, WC1V 7BF
Telephone: 02078362626
Fax: 02072421180
Email: info@envcouncil.org.uk
Web: http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk

Publication:

The Environment Council/Shell (1999), Guidelines for Stakeholder Dialogue: A Joint Venture, The Environment Council, London. Available online at: http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk/docs/Shell_Guidelines_to_SHD.pdf

Popular Methods

21st Century Town Meeting

Citizens Jury

Deliberative Polling

Open Space

Participatory Appraisal

Participatory Budgeting

Webcasting