Scripting, Situating, and Supervising: The Role of Artefacts in Collaborative Practices

Molinengo, Giulia; Stasiak, Dorota

doi:10.3390/su12166407

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SO-type processes can work; this way, deliberation can occur with fewer resources, but it is vulnerable to domination and not particularly satisfying as regards output and, possibly, learning. By using artifacts like response templates or detailed instructions, some benefits of facilitation might be able to be realized without the presence of a facilitator (Molinengo and Stasiak 2020). Facilitation designs like the MM process can bring people together and motivate them; this can be helpful when working together is desirable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Asenbaum (2016) examines the characteristics of one particular facilitation method, dynamic facilitation, documenting how these facilitators address exclusionary tendencies and enable diversity while steering toward consensus. Molinengo and Stasiak (2020) argue that for facilitation, the planned interaction modes and material ' artefacts' used by facilitators can play a significant role in achieving (or impairing) collaborative advantage. As regards online deliberation, Trénel (2009) found that higher quality facilitation could minimize the effects of internal exclusion.…”

Section: The Importance Of Facilitation For Deliberative Mini-publicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although each group received the same introduction and materials, how and when these were applied depended on the process. For a more detailed examination of how the materials were used in the different groups, see Molinengo and Stasiak (2020). The following sections examine the three different facilitation designs.…”

Section: The Context Of Deliberation In All Three Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diversity in Facilitation: Mapping Differences in Deliberative Designs

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are various approaches to facilitation in deliberative mini-publics, yet the scholarly literature remains relatively underdeveloped in identifying which approaches to facilitation are useful in achieving certain deliberative goals. This article compares facilitation approaches based on their potential to achieve different deliberative goals by examining three cases of deliberative mini-publics on urban transformations in the German city of Magdeburg. All three mini-publics were given the same task but were implemented using a particular approach to facilitation: (1) self-organized; (2) a multi-method approach; and (3) dynamic facilitation. We analyzed video recordings and surveys conducted among participants and found that differences in facilitation influence the process of deliberation in numerous ways. While deliberation can happen without a facilitator, certain deliberative goals can be better achieved when the process is professionally facilitated. More stringent or involved facilitation, however, may not serve every purpose of deliberation equally. There are trade-offs when designing, convening, or facilitating deliberative processes, and no approach fits all mini-publics. We conclude the article by identifying the implications of our findings for the scholarship and practice of citizen deliberation in structured forums and beyond.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Importance Of Facilitation For Deliberative Mini-publicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Context Of Deliberation In All Three Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diversity in Facilitation: Mapping Differences in Deliberative Designs

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More conventional set‐ups that make use of stages and podiums create a physical separation between participants that reinforce hierarchies and hampers engagement. Removing physical barriers can help to create an atmosphere that is less competitive and in which all participants can contribute as experts of equal standing (Molinengo & Stasiak, 2020).…”

Section: Toward Developing a New Communication Culture At The Copmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning and community building in support of collective action: Toward a new climate of communication at the COP

Mar

Schäpke

Fraude

et al. 2023

WIREs Climate Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The international UN Climate Change conferences known as "Conferences of the Parties (COPs)" have an enormous convening power and are attended annually by tens of thousands of actors working on climate change topics from a wide range of perspectives. In the COP spaces outside of the formal negotiations, the communication culture is dominated by "side events," a format that relies heavily on conventional presentations and panels that can be informative, but is generally not conducive to mutual engagement, reflection, or dialogue. There is an urgent need for new dialogue formats that can better foster learning and community-building and thereby harness the enormous latent potential for climate action represented by the diverse stakeholders that gather at the COP. Against this backdrop, and drawing on our experience with the development and implementation of the Co-Creative Reflection and Dialogue Spaces at COP25, COP26, and COP27, we make recommendations for further developing the communication culture of the COPs. At the level of individual sessions, we provide recommendations for designing participatory dialogues that can better support reflection, interconnection, and action orientation. In addition, we offer guidance for scaling up these practices, for instance through networks and communities of practice to support a shift of the overall communication culture of the COPs. Our recommendations focus on interactions and exchanges that unfold outside of the formal negotiation sessions, with a view toward enabling and accelerating transformative action by non-state actors.

show abstract

Process expertise in policy advice: Designing collaboration in collaboration

Molinengo

Stasiak

Freeth

2021

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex societal and environmental challenges motivate scholars to assume new roles that transcend the boundaries of traditional academic expertise. The present article focuses on the specialised knowledge, skills, and practices mobilised in the context of science–policy interfaces by researchers who advise policymakers on collaborative governance processes intended to address these pressing issues. By working on the backstage of collaborative arrangements, researchers support policymakers in the co-design of tailor-made strategies for involving groups of institutional and non-institutional actors in collaboration on a specific issue. The present article examines the expertise underpinning this practice, which we term process expertise. While already quite widely practiced, process expertise has not yet been comprehensively theorised. The study employs a self-reflective case narrative to illuminate its constitutive elements and investigates the advisory work of the authors’ research team, called “Co-Creation and Contemporary Policy Advice”, located at the intersection of science, policymaking, and civil society. The findings show that process expertise, when exercised by researchers and supported by an assemblage of enabling conditions inherent to the research context, goes beyond the possession of a set of skills at the individual level. Instead, process expertise in the context of science–policy interfaces unfolds in interaction with other types of knowledge and fulfils its task by generating a weakly institutionalised “in-between space”, in which researchers and policymakers interact to find more inclusive ways of tackling complex challenges. In this realm, relational work contributes to establishing a collaborative modus operandi at the very outset of the advisory process, while working at the processual level supports knowledge co-production among multiple actors. The article argues that it is the ongoing work of process experts at the intersection of relational and processual levels that helps maintain momentum in these collaborative partnerships. By formulating and discussing five constitutive elements of process expertise, this paper untangles the complex work that is required in collaborative research settings and gives a language to the invisible work performed by researchers who offer policymakers—and other invited actors—advice on the process of designing collaboration in collaboration.

show abstract

Scripting, Situating, and Supervising: The Role of Artefacts in Collaborative Practices

Cited by 5 publications

References 57 publications

Diversity in Facilitation: Mapping Differences in Deliberative Designs

Diversity in Facilitation: Mapping Differences in Deliberative Designs

Learning and community building in support of collective action: Toward a new climate of communication at the COP

Process expertise in policy advice: Designing collaboration in collaboration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About