|
|
|
 |
 |
Fishbowl technique for adversarial meetings |
|
Score
79%
|
|
51 votes,
Feasibility
90%
Originality
100%
Humour
90% |
|
I would like to suggest a format for adversarial meetings capable of generating more light and clarity, and less heat and rhetorical sleight of hand.
The main problem with the adversarial, personal quality of debates is that it encourages debaters to use rhetorical devices instead of substance to win points in their battle. However, such experts can be nudged into more creative communication (real dialogue) with a process called 'Fishbowl'.
'You have several people representing Side A talking together, whilst those from Side B sit in the audience'
You have several people representing Side A talking together, whilst those from Side B (and partisans from other sides, if you have them plus some ordinary folks) sit in the audience.
This is often done in a circle format, with a small circle of chairs (the fishbowl) surrounded by one or more larger rows of chairs for the audience.
After a set period of time (15 to 45 minutes), the Side A folks move into the audience and are replaced in the fishbowl by the Side B folks, who talk among themselves while the rest (including the Side A experts) watch.
In its simplest form, you just switch back and forth between the two Sides - each Side having equal time - for however long you have for the whole event. Further sides or viewpoints can be added into the sequence, as long as every side gets a fair share of the time.
If you were to do a Fishbowl using for instance, the Y2K millennium bug topic, you could have Side A ("Y2K is a major change") and Side B ("Y2K is a minor glitch"). I would add a Fishbowl each round for some of the ordinary folks in the audience to go into the middle and discuss what they've heard and not heard from the experts, whilst the experts watch.
This is the Fishbowl equivalent of a questions from the audience period, except that questions aren't being collected or answered, per se. There's just a discussion among the ordinary folks. In subsequent rounds, the experts can pick up on themes raised by the public, or not. In any case, the public concerns are out there in the open for everyone to see.
'Since people are talking with their fellow partisans, they get less caught up in wasteful adversarial games'
Why is Fishbowl more productive than debate? The small group conversations in the Fishbowl tend to depersonalise the issue and reduce the stress level, making people's statements more cogent. Since people are talking with their fellow partisans, they get less caught up in wasteful adversarial games. Each side can be encouraged to spend their brief time together providing the audience with evidence and logic to support their main points, in the light of what the other side has said - all of which benefits the audience.
Furthermore, real dialogue among same-side partisans often reveals significant differences among them - or other facets and nuances of the issue usually hidden by the position-solidifying adversarial heroics of a debate.
All these benefits are more likely to accrue if the dialogue is facilitated, and if the facilitation is done well. But even a Fishbowl done with little or no facilitation will usually provide an audience with greater understanding than they'll get through a debate, for the reasons given above.
In a debate, the point is for one side to win. In a dialogue, such as Fishbowl, the point is to clarify what the issues and evidence are - and perhaps along the way to discover new perspectives, understandings and options that may not have occurred to anyone earlier. When dialogue in any form goes well, people's positions tend to soften or break down, to be replaced by greater understanding.
Tom Atlee, The Co-Intelligence Institute, Oakland, CA, USA (e-mail: cii@igc.apc.org; web: www.co-intelligence.org; also: www.co-intelligence.org/Y2K.html).
Adapted from an e-mail to the Global Ideas Bank.
|
|
|
|
|
