2. Pre-Dialogue Reflections

2.1 Socio-political Context

It is important when considering the effectiveness of the dialogue as a vehicle for bringing people together to exchange views and to listen to one another and as a way of listening to people's voices to remember the distinctive socio-political context within which these events took place.

At least two factors were perceived to have consistently played a role in conditioning responses:

• The GE debate in general
• Prejudices regarding the nature of consultation

The primary residual effect of the GE debate was that any specific focus on human genes in other organisms became difficult to sustain. In a number of cases people argued staunchly that to separate the issue of human genes in other organisms out from GE issues in general was a false distinction. Given the low general level of awareness and lack of sophistication regarding either issue it was inevitable that to some extent in most cases the primary focus spilled over into discussion of GE.

On many occasions participants presumed the dialogue was a consultation by another name. In most cases, by the time the team had worked through its introduction explaining the distinctive character of dialogue, attendees were relieved and enthusiastic. Only on one occasion (see Appendix 7) did participants wish to revert to a consultation model.

2.2 Selection Processes

Facilitators were regularly asked why particular groupings of participants had been made and why particular individuals had been invited. While people were almost always glad to be part of the process, they were looking for a coherent principle behind the selections.

In the event, all groupings provided effective contexts for dialogue. However some participants, once they had engaged in the initial dialogue, expressed interest in continuing the discussion with people from other groups who might not share their own particular paradigms.

The selection of venues was mostly successful. Sometimes, even though offering good logistical support some venues posed travel and parking issues for participants.

High levels of participation often reflected the gathering role of individuals with effective networks (e.g. Asian, 60 plus demographic). Where this model was less successful (Pacific Islands Cross-cultural group) we were alerted to other cultural factors (see Appendix 8).

2.3 Publicity

The initial publicity associated with the project set a number of strong expectations. Unfortunately the visibility of the project died away as the project progressed and people were not always aware that they were part of a larger initiative.

The particular publicity promoting one dialogue, where at least part of the prospective audience was suspicious of events such as these, was not as successful as might have been hoped. (See Appendix 7) More or different publicity may be necessary to support similar public events in the future.

2.4 Collateral

Despite correspondence from the secretariat including an introductory letter setting out the nature and focus of the events, many participants arrived at the dialogue unclear about the proposed character of the day's conversation.

Many participants were not well versed in the material contained in the brochure developed by the Council. For many this material provided a significant and necessary background.

Facilitators took the opportunity to ensure all participants were working from some common understandings by introducing the specific character of dialogue (as opposed to consultation) and providing the opportunity, when appropriate, for participants to read the Council's introductory brochure at the beginning of the event.

2.5 Key Support Mechanisms

As the Facilitation team prepared and undertook its responsibilities, three key mechanisms were of immense value.

The first was the preliminary meeting once key team leaders had been identified. This meeting helped focus common understandings and provide effective liaison between the teams and the secretariat.

The second was Mixed Media's participation, through Wendy Rapana, at the Māori facilitation team's planning and training hui.

Perhaps most important was the extraordinary logistical support offered by Jacinta Buist and the Secretariat. The team was always confident that staff would always be available to answer questions and offer solutions when necessary.

[ Previous Page | Next Page ]