Public Conversations

Another of Wheatley’s core beliefs is that almost all significant change begins with meaningful conversations.  As our public issues have grown increasingly complex, the value of these conversations has also increased; few public issues can be simply handed to an expert to resolve. Clearly, there are interesting implications for how public institutions (such as school boards) engage with the community.

While the principles that produce quality public engagement are not complicated, there are several key components. I was struck by how consistently Wheatley's ideas aligned with the Public Issues Forum model. 

First, “people support what they create”; a principle we saw borne out in the development of the District-wide facilities’ master plan. (Similarly, in the PIF model, participants are encouraged to take ownership of both the process and the results of their conversation. The group agrees to, and helps enforce, the ground rules; it is the group’s responsibility to listen to one another, and work towards finding areas of common ground.)

However, community engagement that is poorly designed or poorly implemented can fail to produce the desired results.  For example, PIF has discovered that it is useful to the process to have a moderator who knows how to keep the group on task; this helps ensure that the group allows sufficient time to wrestle with the pros and cons, and the tradeoffs, that are inherent within varied approaches to a complex problem.

In fact, Wheatley claims what appears to be a good community engagement practice is often counter-productive. The example she gave: many school boards - State College included - allow community members to speak for five minutes on an issue of their choosing. According to Wheatley, “while that sounds good on the surface” it “invites drama and histrionics, rather than good reflection.” (Something to think about.)

By contrast, the PIF model specifically discourages “speeches”. (A key ground rule is that “no one or two participants will dominate the conversation.”) This is critical because it is in the conversation that learning occurs. As a practical matter, if people in the group are not given the opportunity to respond to each other’s statements in a timely way, they will soon tune out the “speech” while they concentrate on their response. 

In fact, in the PIF model “listening for understanding” is a central goal of the group’s work.

Another key to quality public engagement is to “continually expand the circle of inclusion”. This concept is reflected in the PIF practice of periodically asking: “Whose voice is missing?” “Who needs to be at the table?”

Finally, Wheatley believes that allowing “time for reflection” is a key component of all learning. This is particularly true as it relates to community conversations. Time needs to be set aside for personal as well as group reflection. The questions that are asked in the PIF model are: As individuals, how has our thinking changed? Does anyone see the issue differently as a result of this conversation?  As a group: what have we learned?, what do we still need to know?; what do we still need to talk about?  What are our areas of common ground?